losangelesawesome.good.is.s3.amazonaws.com/maker/goldhirsh... · the story of los angeles is a...

Goldhirsh Foundation 1LA2050 Reportwww.LA2050.org

LOSANGELES

WHO WE ARE. HOW WE LIVE. WHERE WE’RE GOING.

LA2050

February 2013


LA2050 IS ABOUT THE FUTURE OF LOS ANGELESIt is a project rooted in a vision of a successful region – one that

is a healthy, thriving, and desirable place to live. It provides the

framework to harness the area’s untapped potential, and it lays out

a roadmap to create a metropolis that boasts a robust middle class.

It foresees an environment that fosters innovation and embraces

creativity. And, in the end, it promotes a future where people are

deeply engaged in building and shaping their region.

THE GOAL OF LA2050 IS TO STIMULATE AN OUTBREAK

OF IDEALISM THAT STRENGTHENS CIVIC ENGAGEMENT,

CHALLENGES THE STATUS QUO, AND DEMANDS MORE

FOR THE FUTURE OF LOS ANGELES.


LA2050 tells the story of Los Angeles using eight indicators that paint a comprehensive picture of the region. Social scientists, economists, and political leaders are moving beyond traditional measures of economic health to assess the vibrancy of cities.1 The !eld is embracing broader measures of human development* and well-being – and so are we. Based on a comprehensive review of the most recent literature on human development, we have selected eight indicators that form the basis of our analysis. We looked to organizations that are known for conducting innovative social science research, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)2, Brookings Institution3, the United Way4, the American Human Development Project5, and the Glasgow Indicators Project6. In addition, we consulted with the LA2050 Academic Advisory Committee to ensure that we identi!ed the most relevant measures. Based on these inputs, this document focuses on the following eight indicators:

*Human development focuses on the “enlargement of the range of people’s choices” that allow them to lead full lives. This de!nition expands on international development approaches that emphasize meeting basic human needs and rely on economic growth as a performance criterion.

From: Streeten, P. (1995). Human Development: Means and Ends. The Pakistan Development Review, (34(4): 346

EDUCATIONEvidence that students are engaged in a learning process that

adequately prepares them to contribute their skills, talents, and

abilities to society.

INCOME AND EMPLOYMENTEvidence of Angelenos’ economic self-suf!ciency.

HOUSINGEvidence of access to and the affordability of housing.

HEALTHEvidence of residents’ health status and their ability to access

health care.

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYProperties and characteristics of the local environment that

have measurable impacts on the life, health, and well-being of

Angelenos and their environs.

PUBLIC SAFETYEvidence of Angelenos’ exposure to crime and evidence that

residents perceive their environment as safe.

SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESSEvidence of individual and collective engagement in actions

designed to identify and address issues of social well-being.

ARTS AND CULTURAL VITALITY“Evidence of creating, disseminating, validating and

supporting arts and culture as a dimension of everyday life in

communities.”7

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK


TRANSPORTATION: Why it isn’t an indicator

Many of LA2050’s supporters, contributors, and advisors have questioned the omission of

transportation as a key indicator in this document. Before this report was authored, we had every

intention of including transportation as a measure of well-being, given its importance in shaping

how people experience their environs. We assumed that a robust transportation network that

provides residents with a bevy of mobility options would be a key indicator of quality of life.

However, an exhaustive literature review and consultation with transportation experts did not

support these assumptions. It turns out that transportation is not a key indicator of human well-

being.

LA2050 Academic Advisor and transportation expert Dr. Martin Wachs suggests that

transportation should be contextualized as a means to an end. It’s hard to measure the quality

of life by calculating transportation costs or the amount of time spent in congestion. Instead, we

should look at transportation as a means to achieving other goals. For instance, transportation

affects access to health care, housing, jobs, education, and other services.

No one moves to a place because it has a stellar transportation system. People live where they do

because they want to get a quality education, a good job, an affordable home, and maintain (or

build new) social ties. Transportation helps accomplish these goals.

In this context, a great transportation network in and of itself doesn’t say much about the health

of a region. Indeed, a robust transportation system is often the outgrowth of a healthy and

thriving environment. While we recognize the centrality of transportation as a facilitator of human

well-being, it does not meet the threshold to be considered an indicator in this report.

6LA2050 Reportwww.LA2050.org

Goldhirsh Foundation

LA2050 REPORT

WHO WE ARE. HOW WE LIVE. WHERE WE’RE GOING.This report documents the LA region in the present and forms a framework to craft an informed

vision for the future. It is an assessment of Los Angeles as we know it now. It examines who we

are, it describes how we live, and it projects where we’re going if we continue on our current path.

We conducted a thorough literature review and consulted with the LA2050 Academic Advisory

Committee to establish a snapshot of Los Angeles.

LA2050: Together Shaping the Future of Los Angeles

VISION FOR A SUCCESSFUL LA.We believe in the power of Angelenos to shape the future of our region. We aim to ignite the

creativity and passion of Angelenos to make LA’s story one of hope for all. If we don’t like what

the projections are saying about our future, then we as citizens, organizations, stakeholders, and

policymakers can work together towards a more successful Los Angeles – one that empowers us

and takes full advantage of the potential our region holds. With your help, together we will put

Los Angeles on a path to vibrancy. Please join us.

www.LA2050.org


WITH THAT, LET’S LAUNCH INTO THE NARRATIVE OF


With over 9.8 million residents, Los Angeles

County is the most populous county in the U.S.8

Home to the largest city in California and the

second largest in the United States, the county’s

population would make it the eighth largest state

in the nation.9 With more than a quarter of the

state’s labor force, it employs over 4.3 million

people. The region is “the largest manufacturing

center in the U.S.,”10 employing more than

380,000 workers in that sector alone.11

It is one of the most diverse regions in the

country. Latinos are the largest racial/ethnic

group12 and over 57 percent of the population

speaks a language other than English. That’s

more than double the !gure for the nation as a

whole, where just 20 percent of the population

speaks a second language.13 Although the

county represents just three percent of the

U.S. population, it is home to 17 percent of the

nation’s Koreans, 14 percent of its Mexicans, 14

percent of its Filipinos, 13 percent of its Chinese,

and 13 percent of its Japanese.14

The region’s recent history has been

characterized by population swells and rapid

shifts in the area’s racial and ethnic makeup. After

World War II, the region’s population growth was

fueled by migration from other states. This led to

a relatively youthful, largely white populace. As

migration from U.S. states began to dwindle in

the 1970s, international immigration surged. This

effectively caused an upheaval in the area’s ethnic

and racial makeup. And that shift came to de!ne

the latter part of the 20th Century.15

53 WOULD HAVE BEEN WHITE28 WOULD HAVE BEEN LATINO13 WOULD HAVE BEEN AFRICAN AMERICAN6 WOULD HAVE BEEN ASIAN

1980IF LOS ANGELES HAD BEEN A VILLAGE OF 100 PEOPLE



The story of Los Angeles is a story of hope. It’s a story of resilience in the face of adversity, but it’s also a story of neglect. It’s a story of

almost incomprehensible disparity, of unequal and uneven access, of dreams denied and

opportunity deferred.

And, still, it’s a story of hope.

This is WHO WE ARE.

Myers, D. (2011). The Future Demographic Outlook of Los Angeles. Population Dynamics Research Group, Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California. Los Angeles, CA.

1 LA2050


Now the demographic shifts and population surges have tempered. The racial and ethnic composition of Los Angeles

has not been changing as rapidly due to reduced immigration. What is evident today is that the immigrant population

that propelled the area’s growth in recent decades is becoming more deeply settled, and they’re rearing a new

generation of California natives.16

Racial and Ethnic Make-UpIn terms of race and ethnicity, Los Angeles has no single ethnic group that forms a majority. Latinos account for nearly

48 percent of the population; whites make up about 29 percent of the populace; Asian and Paci!c Islanders are 14

percent of the population; and African Americans constitute about 9 percent of the county’s residents.17

Our OriginsAs noted above, Los Angeles’ history has been largely shaped by migration and immigration. During the 1950s and

60s “roughly half of Californians were drawn from other states.”18 When domestic migration slowed in the decades

that followed, foreign immigration became the state’s growth engine.19 By 2000, more than 35 percent of the county’s

residents were foreign-born, up from 11 percent just three decades earlier. In the same year, Los Angeles had also

become the “nation’s major immigrant port of entry, supplanting New York City.”20

Today, in-migration to California is slowing, and Los Angeles County mirrors that trend. The number of native

Californians is increasing as a proportion of the populace. California natives haven’t made up such a large portion of the

state’s residents since 1900.21 Today, the county’s California-born population is 49 percent, while the foreign-born !gure

remains at 35 percent. However, the proportion of residents from other states has dropped to below 16 percent.22

Aging PopulationHistorically, Los Angeles has been relatively youthful when compared to the nation23, but the region’s populace is aging.

With the ebbing tide of migrants into the county, there is no longer a steady stream of young adults to replace the

in"ux from previous generations. Between 2000 and 2010, the proportion of children (aged 0-17) shrunk by more than 5

percent. Los Angeles lost 10 percent of its children between the ages of !ve and nine, representing the largest decline

of any age group.24

In the same decade, the proportion of young adults (aged 18-34) shrank slightly, to just over 26 percent of the

population. Meanwhile, the proportion of middle-aged adults (aged 35-64) grew, inching toward the 40 percent mark.

The proportion of older adults (aged 65+) rose incrementally in the same timeframe, to just over 10 percent of area

residents.25

While our population remains relatively youthful, the Los Angeles region is on the cusp of a shift. Mirroring the national

trend of a rapidly aging population, we’re beginning to see losses in the region’s child and young adult age groups.26

The decline in the young adult population will signi!cantly affect the region. This age group is “crucial to the future of

Los Angeles because they represent the new workers, new parents, new housing consumers, new taxpayers, and new

voters.”27 How this population changes in light of reduced domestic migration and international immigration is pivotal.

Today’s policies will have far-reaching implications since the next generation of adults are the young California-natives

who are now working their way through the region’s educational, health care, and social welfare systems.

These aspects of who we are as a region are determinants of who we will be. They in"uence what we can and cannot

accomplish in the future. We’re numerous. We’re diverse. We’re aging. We’re increasingly native Californians. That’s Los

Angeles today and it sets the stage for the future.


Now that we understand who we are, we can explore HOW WE LIVE.In Los Angeles, how we live is largely a product of who we are. In many cases, race, income, and geography dictate how residents experience Los Angeles.

The county has large swaths of

concentrated poverty, particularly

in central Los Angeles and near the

ports complexes.28 For residents

in these areas, life in Los Angeles

presents a host of challenges. The

communities of color that reside

in low-income neighborhoods are

faced with dismal job prospects;

unemployment rates for Latinos and

African Americans are consistently

higher than the countywide

average.29 Families struggling to

get by have no choice but to enroll

their children in the underfunded30

and underperforming31 public school

system. Park space is scarce32 and

healthy food options are few and

far between, so rates of obesity and

chronic disease are more prevalent.33

To boot, these Angelenos are

exposed to the worst air in the

region, further deteriorating their

health.34

On the other end of the spectrum,

Los Angeles has relatively large

areas of concentrated wealth. The

top 20 percent of households earn

more than the bottom 80 percent

combined.35 Emerging from the

worst economic downturn since

the Great Depression, the job

market is still challenging, but

the unemployment rate among

the county’s white and Asian

communities is signi!cantly lower

than those for African Americans and

Latinos.36 Families with high incomes

have the option of sending their

children to private schools, avoiding

the dysfunction of the public school

system. Park space is concentrated

near higher-income neighborhoods37

and healthy food options are

plentiful.38 Not surprisingly, relatively

wealthy places like Santa Monica

and Los Angeles’ Westside have the

lowest obesity rates in the county.39

Los Angeles is a region where

opportunities are constrained for

many segments of the population,

including those families in the

Gateway Cities or in the San Gabriel

Valley who are !nding affordable

housing increasingly out of reach,40

the two million residents scattered

throughout the county who lack

health insurance,41 or the 3 in 5

students countywide who aren’t

prepared for college because they

didn’t (or couldn’t) complete the

necessary coursework.42

As this report delves into how

Angelenos live, the theme of access

and opportunity will surface time

and time again. We’ll !nd that in Los

Angeles, who you are, where you

live, and how much money you make

is a strong predictor of your fate.


Based on our analysis, we’ve created a dashboard that provides a snapshot of the LA area today. Each of the indicators is assigned one of four colors (red, orange, light green, or green) based on its impact on human development in Los Angeles. The rating system is as follows:

DASHBOARD RATING

SIGNIFICANTLY HINDERS HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

HINDERS HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

ENHANCES HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

SIGNIFICANTLY ENHANCES HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

The ratings were informed by our research and in consultation with the LA2050 Academic Advisory Committee. To

be clear, they are not meant to imply any numeric calculation or weighted score. They are based on the available

data and provide only a high-level overview of each of the eight indicators.

We should note that these ratings will vary substantially within the county because of varying demographic,

socioeconomic, and geographic factors. In the county’s af"uent communities, most of these indicators would earn

much higher ratings. In the poorest neighborhoods, many would receive the lowest designation. The dashboard

provides a snapshot of where Los Angeles stands today as a whole, but it doesn’t account for the vast diversity of

experiences that characterize the region. That said, it is a simple reference point against which we can chart the LA

that we’d like to see in 2050.


DASHBOARD RATINGSigni!cant impediment to human development

Education received the lowest rating, meaning that it is a signi!cant impediment to human development. This outcome was based on the fact that the public school system in Los Angeles is failing many of its students. Graduation rates are low and too many kids throughout the county are not completing the necessary college preparatory coursework. Enrollment and investment in high-quality preschool is also lacking. On top of this, continued cuts at the state level are making a bad situation worse. Given that education is such a fundamental aspect of human development with far-reaching effects, the stark disparity in educational opportunities for the county’s students is unacceptable.

KEY FINDINGS:LA County has 1,808,227 students; 175,800 are in private school; 1,632,427 attend public school.44

There are 80 school districts in LA County. Los Angeles Uni!ed School District (LAUSD) is the largest in the state and the second largest in the nation.45

LAUSD has about 670,000 students enrolled in 1,235 K-12 schools, centers, and charter schools.46

The LAUSD high school student body is 75 percent Latino, 9 percent African American, 4 percent Asian, 9 percent white and 3 percent Filipino. 74 percent of this cohort is economically disadvantaged.47

Overall, 48 percent of LAUSD’s high school students are pro!cient in English and Language Arts; 46 percent are pro!cient in Math.

High school students scoring “pro!cient” or “advanced” in English and Language Arts (ELA) and Math (M) by race48: Asian: 76 percent (ELA)/ 80 percent (M) White: 74 percent (ELA)/70 percent (M) Filipino: 64 percent (ELA)/61 percent (M) Latino: 43 percent (ELA)/41 percent (M) African American: 43 percent (ELA)/32 percent (M) Paci!c Islander: 21 percent (ELA)/20 percent (M)

In 2011 the overall Academic Performance Index (API) score for Los Angeles Uni!ed School district was 728, a 19-point increase from 2010. It was the largest increase of any urban school district in California, but it still fell short of the 800-point target.49

The increase in API scores district-wide obscures the disparities along racial/ethnic lines. API scores by race50 White: 849 African American: 663 Latino: 686 Low-income: 691

The LAUSD graduation rate for 2009-2010 was 64.2 percent. The statewide graduation rate was 74.4 percent.51 The nationwide graduation rate was 71.7 percent.52

Countywide, just 2 in 5 students complete the necessary college preparatory coursework.53

coursework. Only 16 percent of Latino 9th graders graduated after completing the A-G coursework.54

More than a quarter of children in Los Angeles are enrolled in afterschool programs, compared to 19 percent at the state and 15 percent at the national level.55

METRICS43

(1) test scores, (2) high school completion and drop rates, (3) college-going rates, (4) preschool participation, and (5) afterschool and summer school enrichment programs.

EducationFACT SHEET


For every dollar spent on the

provision of high quality, universal

pre-school, the state of California

would net more than two dollars in

economic bene!ts.58

But forget the statewide bene!ts

for a moment; the estimated effects

on Los Angeles County alone are

impressive. Providing one year of

pre-school funding keeps more

than 4,000 kids from being held

back a grade; it shrinks the special

education cohort by nearly 3,000

kids; it decreases the ranks of high

school dropouts by 3,200 students;

and more than 2,300 kids will

avoid the juvenile court system.59

By investing money up front, the

state can save millions on special

education, remedial instruction, and

the criminal justice system.

Despite the obvious payback on

investment, the state’s continuing

budget woes have led to steadily

reduced funding for these programs.

Let’s start with

EDUCATIONIt’s a “basic need and important aspiration of people.”56 A well-educated Angeleno is less likely to be unemployed

and more likely to earn higher wages. She is more likely to report improved health and less likely to suffer from chronic

disease. She is more inclined to be an engaged member of the community, and less likely to commit crime. She

also relies less on social assistance. Collectively, better educated Angelenos lead to “higher GDP growth, higher tax

revenues and lower social expenditures.”57 In short, an effective education system bene!ts us all. Unfortunately, public

education in Los Angeles falls short.

Too few of our kids are enrolled in high quality pre-school education programs.

Too many aren’t making it to their senior year of high school.

PRE K

K-12

PRESCHOOL COSTS AND BENEFITS

EVERY $1 INVESTED IN A ONE YEAR U N I V E R S A L PRESCHOOL P R O G R A M FOR CALIFORNIA’S 4 YEAR OLDS COULD GENERATE $2.62 IN BENEFITS TO SOCIETY

RAND Corporation (2005). The Effects of Universal Preschool Programs in California: Estimates for Los Angeles County.Santa Monica, CA.


California’s 2011-12 budget

reduced funding for early childcare

and early learning programs by 15

percent. At the same time, Governor

Jerry Brown signed legislation to

reallocate one billion dollars from

the state’s First 5 programs.60

Funded by a cigarette sales tax,

First 5 provides “education, health

services, childcare, and other crucial

programs.”61 Cutting First 5’s

funding, coupled with the overall

reduction of state programs, means

that some 28,000 kids statewide will

be unable to attend pre-school.62

The cuts to investment in children’s

education and health will likely

continue as California grapples

with ongoing structural de!cits.

Governor Brown’s proposed 2012-

2013 budget would permanently

eliminate funds for transitional

kindergarten63, a “program

designed to serve children not

ready for regular kindergarten.”64

The program was enacted after

lawmakers passed a law that

mandated an earlier cutoff age

for kindergarten. The transitional

kindergarten program was intended

to assist “low-income families that

could not easily afford private pre-

kindergarten programs.”65 Brown’s

budget proposal “would eliminate

71,000 child care positions”

statewide.66

This has the broad effect of making

early education a luxury that is

available only to those who can

afford it. In Los Angeles County,

less than one-!fth of pre-school

aged children are enrolled in early

education programs67, depriving

many children of a much-needed

leg-up when they enter the public

school system.

AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKA NATIVE

LAUSD GRADUATION REPORTDEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

687,534STUDENTS

868SCHOOLS

STUDENT POPULATION STUDENT POPULATION

3,546STUDENTS

7SCHOOLS

LAUSD NATIONAL AVERAGE

AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKA NATIVE.4% 1.3%

6.5% 5.1%

9.0%17.0%

55.1%10.7%

73.4%

ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER

ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER

WHITE(NOT HISPANIC)

WHITE(NOT HISPANIC)

BLACK(NOT

HISPANIC)

BLACK(NOT

HISPANIC)

HISPANIC

21.5%HISPANIC

74.6%POVERTY(FREE ORREDUCED

LUNCHELIGIBILITY)

32.1%ENGLISH

LANGUAGELEARNERS

11.9%SPECIAL

EDUCATION

44.1%POVERTY(FREE ORREDUCED

LUNCHELIGIBILITY)

9.2%ENGLISH

LANGUAGELEARNERS

12.4%SPECIAL

EDUCATION

For K-12 education, this report

focuses on the Los Angeles Uni!ed

School District (LAUSD). Its sheer

scale and in"uence in the region are

undeniable and its impacts are far-

reaching.

LAUSD is the largest district in the

state and the second largest in the

nation. It serves more than 670,000

students.68 That’s enough kids to

!ll Dodger Stadium, the Hollywood

Bowl, the Staples Center, the Greek

Amphitheater, the Rose Bowl, and

the Coliseum.

Seven in 10 students are Latino, 6

in 10 will graduate, and fully one

quarter will not !nish high school.69

For those of you keeping count,

that’s over 20,000 Angelenos

entering the modern economy every

year and competing without a high

school degree.70

But even that statistic obscures a

reality that is much more bleak. Only

six in ten Latino students complete

high school. African Americans and

Paci!c Islanders are almost as likely

to dropout as they are to graduate;

their graduation rates are 57 and 56

percent, respectively.71

Editorial Projects in Education (2011). Education Week Maps. School District Graduation Report. Bethesda, MD.


That’s not promising. And,

yet, there is reason for hope.

Enrollment in afterschool programs

is a surprising bright spot in Los

Angeles. Small-scale experiments in

magnet, charter, and other locally

controlled schools are creating

islands of excellence in an otherwise

underperforming system, helping

the district achieve incremental

improvements in test scores.

A sizeable portion of Los Angeles

students are enrolled in afterschool

programs. With 27 percent of

kids (about 175,400 students)

participating in these enrichment

programs, the area outpaces the

state (19 percent) and national (15

percent) averages. LA “stands out

as a solid provider of afterschool

programs for kids.”72 This feat was

accomplished largely because of

deliberate policy decisions made

at the state level. California’s After

School Education and Safety (ASES)

Program, the result of a voter-

approved initiative, has some $550

million in dedicated funding.73 The

program “funds local afterschool

education and enrichment programs

throughout California,” providing

“tutoring and additional learning

opportunities for students in

kindergarten through ninth grade.”74

In addition, parents in Los Angeles

demonstrate a “high degree of

support for afterschool programs

in the city.” Eighty six percent are

in favor of public funding for these

programs and nearly 90 percent

would like to see public funding

GRADUATION PIPELINE CLASS OF 2009

PERCENT OF STUDENTS LOST BY GRADEDetails may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

LAUSDWHERE ARE STUDENTS LOST? NATIONAL AVERAGE

9 GRADETH

10 GRADETH

11 GRADE

12 GRADE

TH

TH

37.5% 30.0%

26.4% 16.7%

15.5% 26.6%

20.6% 26.6%

for summer learning programs. More than 220,000 children (34 percent of

students) in Los Angeles participate in summer learning programs, again

outpacing state (27 percent) and national (25 percent) !gures.75

Californians’ commitment to supporting education will be tested in the near

future. Governor Jerry Brown’s 2012-2013 budget calls for another $4.8 billion

in cuts from K-12 education if voters fail to approve tax hikes in November,

amounting to a three week reduction in the school year.76 LAUSD alone has

suffered $2.3 billion in cuts over the last four years.77

In spite of this, public schools stand to gain if voters approve tax hikes in

November of 2012. California’s K-12 education and community colleges

“would gain roughly $5 billion in funding each year” if a temporary half-

cent sales tax increase and a surtax on individual incomes above $250,000

are approved.78 It helps that the majority (53 percent) of Californians are

concerned about the “potential effects of automatic spending cuts on K-12

education.”79



GRADUATION ANALYSISGRADUATION RATE FOR ALL STUDENTS, CLASS OF 2009

LAUSD 45.8% NATIONAL AVERAGE 73.4%

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

NATIONAL AVERAGE CHANGE OVER TIME +7.3%

LAUSD CHANGE OVER TIME -2.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

LAUSD has seen incremental

improvements in test scores,

reporting the largest one-year

improvement among large urban

school districts in the state.80

Overall, the district reported a

single-year gain of 19 points on

the state’s academic performance

index (API). It earned an average

score of 728, falling short of the

800-point target. Just over 200

LAUSD schools met or exceeded

that goal, representing an increase

of 36 schools over the previous

year. But those 200-odd schools

account for only one-fourth of all

LAUSD schools.81 So while the

district’s scores are improving,

the overwhelming majority of

LAUSD students are attending

underperforming schools.

Furthermore, the district-wide scores

hide disparities that fall along racial

and ethnic lines. While LAUSD’s

white students have a collective API

score of 862 (well above the target),

Latino students scored just 707, and

African American pupils fared worse

still, with a score of 678.82

The reality is that LAUSD students

are left with few options. Many of

them are inadequately prepared for

college, vocational school, or the

workforce.83 Countywide, just 2 in

5 students complete the necessary

college preparatory coursework.

That number drops to just 1 in 5

for African American and Latino

males. Most distressingly, in LAUSD,

low-income students of color

tend to be offered fewer college

preparatory classes when “compared

to their af"uent, white and Asian

counterparts across town.”84 This

only perpetuates a long-established

economic system that divides Los

Angeles into haves and have-nots.

Which brings us to INCOME AND

EMPLOYMENT.



DASHBOARD RATINGHinders human development

Income and Employment was deemed to be a hindrance to human development, earning an orange

on our scale. Los Angeles’ bifurcated economic system creates a society of haves and have-nots. Too

many families are struggling to get by, and the persistently high unemployment rate is making the

region a less attractive place to settle.

KEY FINDINGS: More than 12.5 million Americans are looking for work86 and there were only 3.7 million job openings.87

The national unemployment rate is hovering at 8.1 percent.88

At the end of 2012, there were 18.3 million people in the California labor force, with 16.4 million people employed, 2.9 million unemployed, and an unemployment rate of 8.1 percent.89

LA County’s unemployment rate topped the national and state !gures, with a rate of 12.2 percent.90

Unemployment rates for African American and Latinos are the highest among any ethnic group. In Los Angeles County the unemployment rate for African Americans and Latinos is 21 percent and 14 percent, respectively.91

“Workers under 25 years of age have the highest under-employment rate of any labor force group – 37.9% in LA County, 36.0% in California, and 27.3% in the U.S.”92

In 2011, the median income in California was $57,287.93 In LA County the !gure was $70,100.94

Of the 265 neighborhoods in Los Angeles County, Bel Air has the highest median income at $207,938 and Downtown has the lowest median income at $15,003.95

In 2008, 45 percent of the county’s households did not earn enough to cover basic expenses (i.e., an income of less than $52,184 for a family of four); 3 percent of households had just enough income to cover necessities (income between $52,184 and $56,768); 52 percent of households had enough income to live comfortably (income above $66,768).96

Los Angeles has a higher poverty rate (17.5 percent)97 than the nation (15.1 percent)98 and the state (16.3 percent).99

In LA County, to support a family’s basic needs: A single parent household with two kids must make $68,714. A two-parent household with only one parent working with two kids must make $61,706. A two-working parents household with two kids must make $76,614. A single adult household must maintain a minimum salary of $30,496.100

METRICS85

(1) employment & unemployment rates, (2) household income, (3) poverty rates and, (4) family supportive wages.

Income and EmploymentFACT SHEET


INCOME AND EMPLOYMENTIncome expands “people’s

consumption possibilities, providing

them with the resources to satisfy

their needs.”101 By extension, wealth

protects us from “unexpected

shocks that could lead to poverty

and destitution.”102 Armed with a

suf!cient education, an Angeleno

with adequate income is more likely

to be in better health. He is more

likely to live in a safe neighborhood.

And he is more likely to report

higher life satisfaction.103

As a corollary, the availability of

well-paying jobs allows individuals

to ful!ll their “ambitions, to develop

skills and abilities, to feel useful in

society and to build self-esteem.”104

Collectively, high employment

levels create societies that are

“richer, more politically stable and

healthier.”105

For many Angelenos, well-paying

jobs are elusive. Too many families

are struggling to get by on too little

income.

The “Great Recession,” or whatever

history will call it, has had an

especially strong effect on Los

Angeles. The region’s reliance on

the industry that constructs and sells

housing has ampli!ed the effects

of the recession, creating a grim

economic climate. Employment

in the state “won’t return to pre-

recession levels until 2014, and

construction employment won’t

reach those levels until at least

2021.”106

Los Angeles County’s unemployment rate has surpassed the national average

since the middle of 2008, with 12.2 percent of the workforce seeking

employment.107 The story is worse for the county’s sizeable communities of

color. Most notably, nearly two !fths of the African American workforce is not

participating in the regional economy.108

Given that “the experience of unemployment is one of the factors that have

the strongest negative impact on people’s subjective well-being,”109 this isn’t

good news.

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE BY RACELOS ANGELES COUNTY’S UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

HAS SURPASSED THE NATIONAL AVERAGE

12.2%

18.3%

13.3%

11.2%

10.3%

9.4%

LA COUNTYOVERALL

NATIONALAVERAGE

ASIAN

LATINO

AFRICAN AMERICAN

PERCENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN L.A. COUNTY

SINCE THE MIDDLE OF 2008 WITH MORE THAN ONE TENTH OF THE WORKFORCE SEEKING EMPLOYMENT. THE STORY IS WORSE FOR THE COUNTRY’S SIZEABLE COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.

WHITE

U.S. Census Bureau (2011). American Community Survey Employment Status.


TOP QUINTILEWEALTHY

52% OF TOTAL INCOME FOURTH QUINTILEUPPER MIDDLE CLASS22% OF TOTAL INCOME

INCOME BY QUINTILESWHO GETS THE BIGGEST PIECE OF THE PIE?

In Los Angeles County the wealthiest 20% of households receive more income than the other 80% of households combined. Put another way, the county’s wealthiest 640,000 families earn more income than over 2 million households combined.

BOTTOM QUINTILEPOOR

3% OF TOTAL INCOME

SECOND QUINTILEWORKING CLASS8% OF TOTAL INCOME

THIRD QUINTILEMIDDLE CLASS

14% OF TOTAL INCOME

U.S. Census Bureau (2010). American Community Survey Select Economic Statistics.


But it gets worse. The region’s poor

employment statistics are re"ected

in its income distribution. While the

county’s median income of about

$70,100 is above the state average

(~$54,681), the manner in which

income is distributed reinforces the

notion of a bifurcated economic

system.

The top 20 percent of households in

the county earn more income than

the bottom 80 percent combined.110

Of large metropolitan areas in the

U.S., Los Angeles ranks third (behind

New York and Miami) for income

inequality. That means that a smaller

proportion of Angelenos controls a

larger share of income than in most

other cities in the U.S.

Nearly half of the county’s

households struggle to meet the

most basic needs of food, shelter,

transportation, and healthcare.

Three percent, or just “over 25,000

families have just enough income”

to cover those basic necessities. In

Los Angeles a budget for providing

family necessities requires an annual

income of $64,239 for one parent

with two children. Two-parent

households with two kids need to

make $54,039.111

Income disparity is exacerbated

by the fact that LA is an expensive

place to live. While Los Angeles is

relatively cheap in comparison to

places like New York112, the incomes

of Angelenos don’t allow them to

keep pace. Simply put, LA’s workers

generally don’t make enough

income to live near their jobs, which

is why the next statement shouldn’t

be surprising.

INCOME DISPARITY RANKING THE LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN AREA CONSITENTLY RANKS AS ONE OF THE WORST U.S. CITIES IN TERMS OF INCOME INEQUALITY.

GINI INDEX

NEW ORLEANS

MIAMI

NEW YORK

HOUSTON

LOS ANGELES

SAN FRANCISCO

BIRMINGHAM

MEMPHIS

U.S. AVERAGE

.558

.553

.528

.543

.529

.514

.505

.502

.475

Los Angeles residents spend a lot on

HOUSING.

Weinberg, D.H. (2011). U.S. Neighborhood Income Inequality in the 2005-2009 Period. American Community Survey Reports. Washington, D.C.: United States Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration.


Housing earned an orange on our scale, meaning that it hinders human development. Receding

housing costs and the uptick in multi-family and affordable housing construction are the only factors

preventing this indicator from receiving a red rating. Affordable housing is out of reach for many

families, and too many low- and middle-income households are spending too much for their homes.

KEY FINDINGS:

LA County as compared to a state average of 9.1 percent.114

The homeowner vacancy rate of 2.3 percent is lower than the rental vacancy rate of 5.5 percent, mirroring a common trend nationwide.115

Atlanta (20.9 percent), Chicago (14.8 percent), and New York (10.3 percent).116

Los Angeles has relatively high median rents ($1,161 for the county, $1,135 for the city) when compared to other major cities like San Francisco ($1,407), New York ($1,129), Chicago ($1168), and Atlanta ($905).117

118, up 1.33 percent119 from 2011.

More than half (55.5 percent) of LA County renters spend 30 percent or more of their income on housing.120

more.121

Nationally, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area has the second highest percentage of working households with a severe housing cost burden. 38 percent of the area’s working households spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs. Miami-Fort-Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, Florida has the highest proportion (42 percent).122

housing.123

Although housing affordability in Los Angeles has increased, potential buyers need to earn a minimum annual income of $58,550 to qualify for the purchase of a home priced at the county median price, $296,780.124

San Bernardino County, 65 percent in Riverside County, and 35 percent in Orange County.125

Los Angeles is considered the “homeless capital of the country.”126 There were an estimated 51,340 homeless persons countywide in 2011, representing a 3 percent decrease over the previous year.127

METRICS113

(1) vacancy rates, (2) median rent, (3) median sales price, and (4) housing affordability


HousingFACT SHEET


HOUSINGIt’s a pricey commodity, oftentimes consuming the largest chunk of family

income. Housing is at the “top of the hierarchy of human material needs . . .

and is central to people’s ability to meet basic needs.”128 Inadequate housing

can affect health status, disrupt social relations, and hamper an individual’s

ability to participate in the larger society.

Families in Los Angeles spend more of their income on housing than families

in most other large cities in the U.S.129

Using the standard that housing is

affordable if the rent or mortgage

requires less than 30 percent of

a household’s income,130 many

Angelenos have dif!culty !nding

housing within their means. Once

again, low-income households have

the hardest time locating suitably

priced homes. Three fourths of low-

income homeowners and more than

90 percent of low-income renters

spend more than 30 percent of their

income on housing.131

One reason for the city’s high

housing costs is the paucity of units

for low- and middle-income wage

earners. Just 49 percent of the city’s

home buyers can afford the area’s

median home price of $296,780. A

household would need an annual

income of $58,550 to afford a home

at that price.132

As Dr. Richard Green of the

University of Southern California

noted, the city of Los Angeles is

one of the few places in the nation

where there isn’t enough housing

stock.133 Demand far outstrips

supply, with Los Angeles reporting

some of the lowest vacancy rates

when compared to other large U.S.

cities.134 That doesn’t bode well

for the legions of low-income and

middle class households that are

competing for Los Angeles’ limited

housing stock.

Even so, there is reason for

hope. The decades-long trend of

households moving to far-"ung

suburbs in search of cheap homes

is beginning to reverse itself. On

the whole, the county’s population

is younger than that of the nation.

Economists predict that a younger

populace “‘buffeted by the boom

and bust in the housing market’”

will stimulate “more demand for

urban rental units and less demand

for suburban cul-de-sacs.”135 The

market is already beginning to

respond to these pressures. Building

permits for single-family homes

are declining “while permits for

multifamily complexes are starting to

regain strength.”136

Still, a signi!cant number of

Angelenos spend large sums of

their income on expensive housing.

This depletes !nancial resources

that households need to afford

other necessities. For some families,

this erases the option of sending

their child to a private school

that may outperform the public

school system. For others, it means

curtailing their use of personal

vehicles in a car-dominated region,

potentially restricting mobility and

access to jobs.

And some families risk their

HEALTH.


Health was found to hinder human development in Los Angeles. The county’s large proportion

of uninsured individuals and the stark disparities in health outcomes based on race, class, and

geographic location make the health landscape perilous for many Angelenos. Still, as a whole, we’re

less obese than the nation, and the county has reported steady reductions in death rates from

chronic conditions like heart disease and lung cancer.

KEY FINDINGS:

different populations in LA County.138

139 But the county fares better than the nation.140

uninsured rates (34 percent).141 These !gures surpass the nationwide uninsured rate, estimated at 15.5 percent.142

LA and Metro LA have the lowest rates of insured Angelenos in the county.143

LA County, but the rates of death have fallen 38 percent in the last decade.144

from stroke.”145

146

predictor of premature mortality among Latinos and the best way to decrease mortality rates in this group would be to address income disparities.”147

148

149

difference in life expectancy between black males and Asian/Paci!c Islander females (69.4 vs. 86.9 years, respectively).150

151: All groups: 82.9/77.6 Whites: 82.3/77.6 Latinos: 84.4/79.0 African Americans: 77.2/69.4 Asians and Paci!c Islanders: 86.9/82.4

also higher than the average (624 per 100,000).152

METRICS137

(1) rates of chronic disease, (2) access to healthcare, and (3) mortality & morbidity


HealthFACT SHEET


HEALTHIt isn’t news that “health is one of the most valued aspects of people’s life.”153 International surveys have found that,

combined with jobs, health status ranks as one of the most important determinants of people’s living conditions. Good

health enables us to participate as full citizens in our society.154 A healthy Angeleno is capable of obtaining a quality

education and !nding gainful employment.

But, given the high cost of housing and the wide disparities in household income, a large proportion of the region’s

denizens are unable to safeguard their health. Los Angeles County is home to over two million uninsured people.155

That means one in four residents has little or no access to preventative care; that means one in four has few options

when things go awry; that means one in four risks !nancial ruin due to illness.

Geography, income, and race are strong predictors of the fate of LA’s residents, and health is no exception.

LEADING CAUSES OF PREMATURE DEATH BY RACE**

*years of life lost over the 10-year reporting period**note that "premature" is de!ned as any death that occurs before 75 years of age

1RACE 2 3 4

ASIAN/PACIFIC

ISLANDER

HEART DISEASE*25,427

HOMICIDE*22,546


DRUG OVERDOSE*10,454

MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH*17,678

LUNG CANCER*9,196

LUNG CANCER*3,958

LUNG CANCER*2,461

SUICIDE*8,437

LIVER DISEASE*10,749

WHITE

LATINO

AFRICANAMERICAN


HOMICIDE*11,736

STROKE*2,931

MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH*

3,741

MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH*

2,423

HEART DISEASE*5,576

Low-income and non-white

populations suffer the worst

negative health consequences of

modern life. These groups are more

likely to live in neighborhoods where

they are exposed to heavily polluted

air. This increases their cancer risk

and causes an increased incidence of

respiratory ailments like asthma.156

In Los Angeles, air toxins

concentrate in the highest quantities

near the ports complex and in

Central LA. Both locations are home

to low-income communities of color,

and both locations have the highest

estimated cancer risk in Los Angeles.

Near the ports, it’s estimated that

nearly 4 out of every 1,000 residents

will be diagnosed with cancer as a

result of the area’s poor air quality.

For the entire Los Angeles area, the

estimated cancer risk is just over 1

in 1,000.157 So, residents of Central

Los Angeles and those living near

the ports are almost four times more

likely than everyone else to develop

cancer because of where they live

and the air they breathe. Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (2010). Cause of Death and Premature Death: Trends for 1998-2007. Los Angeles, CA.


Underserved neighborhoods are also less likely to have easy access to parks and open space where individuals can

exercise, leading to an increased incidence of obesity.158 Of seven major U.S. metropolitan areas, Los Angeles offered

its children the worst access to parkland, leaving well over 600,000 children without any easy way to access a park

facility.159 The disparity between ethnic groups is particularly stark. In heavily Latino neighborhoods, residents have

about one half acre of park space for every 1,000 people. African American neighborhoods must make do with fewer

than 2 acres of open space per 1,000 residents. Predominantly white neighborhoods, however, average over 30 acres

per 1,000 residents.160

Further compounding the problem is a lack of access to food retailers that sell fresh fruits and vegetables.161 Largely

white neighborhoods have three “times as many supermarkets as Black neighborhoods and nearly twice as many

markets as Latino neighborhoods in Los Angeles.”162 Predictably, a place like West Los Angeles, with its low poverty

rate and higher incomes, has the lowest obesity rate in the county; just 1 in 10 West Angelenos are obese.163 South Los

Angeles, with its concentration of low-income communities of color, reports the highest obesity rate in the county; more

than 1 in 3 South Angelenos are obese.164

For LA’s low-income communities of color, the region’s health landscape is dismal. For many, it’s a story of access.

There’s limited access to clean air, poor access to recreation spaces, and restricted access to healthy nutritional options.

And for the one-fourth of county residents who are uninsured, there’s very little access to affordable health care.

SEATTLE79%

LOS ANGELES33%

SAN DIEGO65%

NEW YORK91%

BOSTON97%

PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN WITHIN 1/4 MILE OF A PARK

SAN FRANCISCO85%

DALLAS42%

Trust for Public Land (2004). No Place to Play: A Comparative Analysis of Park Access in Seven Major Cities. San Diego, CA.


NUMBER OF CHILDREN WITHOUT ACCESS TO A PARK

NEW YORKBOSTON LOS ANGELESDALLASSAN DIEGOSEATTLESAN FRANCISCO

2,90016,700 18,600

102,300

178,500 182,800

657,700

All of this has conspired to create a region where 1 in 4 children are obese.165 It has conspired to create a place where

chronic conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease are curtailing life. It has conspired to create a

region where low-income people of color are the most likely to get sick and the least likely to get care.

And still, there is hope. Adjusted for age and race, it is estimated that the overall obesity rate in Los Angeles County is

signi!cantly below the national average. Just over one !fth of the residents are obese, versus one third of the national

population. Places where people are “more af"uent and better educated” were shown to have a much lower incidence

of obesity, proving just how critical the link is between education, income, and health outcomes.166

On the horizon, there’s the full implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In 2014, nearly all

legal U.S. residents will be required to obtain health insurance.167 Ostensibly, this will substantially lower the number

of uninsured people countywide. Rates of hypertension, obesity, and diabetes are higher for low-income people of

color.168 Health, with its fundamental impact on the human experience, is one of the starkest examples of the disparities

between the haves and the have-nots in this region.

While income and education are inextricably woven to health outcomes, the physical environment also plays a role.

Although it’s improving, Los Angeles’ environmental landscape also demonstrates the disparity that has come to

characterize this region.

And with that, we move on to ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.

Trust for Public Land (2004). No Place to Play: A Comparative Analysis of Park Access in Seven Major Cities. San Diego, CA.



Environmental Quality was also found to be a hindrance to human development in LA, earning an

orange rating. There is no doubt that the environmental quality has dramatically improved in recent

decades, and we’re on a trajectory that is promising. Still, Los Angeles’ water sources are imperiled,

park access is lacking for many of the region’s residents, and the poorest air quality is concentrated

near low-income communities of color.

KEY FINDINGS:Los Angeles devotes 7.9 percent (23,798 acres) of its total land area to parks and open space, which is on par with

the national median !gure of 8.3 percent.170 However, access to the city’s park infrastructure lags behind much of the nation.171

Of seven major U.S. metropolitan areas that were evaluated, Los Angeles offered its children the worst access to parks, leaving well over 600,000 children in the city and over 1.6 million in the county without any easy way to get to a park facility.172

Proximity to parkland in major U.S. metropolitan areas (percentage of children within one-quarter mile of a park Boston: 97 percent (2,900 children without easy access to a park) New York: 91 percent (178,500 children) San Francisco: 85 percent (16,700 children) Seattle: 79 percent (18,600 children) San Diego: 65 percent (102,300 children) Dallas: 42 percent (182,800 children) Los Angeles County: 36 percent (1,694,400 children)

A 2002 study found that heavily Latino neighborhoods have only 0.6 park acres per 1,000 people; African American communities have 1.7 park acres per 1,000 people; and largely Caucasian communities have 31.8 park acres per 1,000 residents.173

Southern California “contains some of the highest concentrations of industrial and commercial operations in the country” and has the poorest air quality in the U.S.174

Diesel particulate matter (DPM) contributes to 84 percent175 of the estimated cancer risk, but programs to reduce DPM have had success. The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles have reduced DPM by 80 percent in a !ve-year period.176

“Population-weighted cancer risk estimates from air toxics exposure are consistently about 50% higher for people of color, as compared to Anglos, at every level of income.”177

Average water use from 2005 to 2010 was about the same as it was in 1981 “despite the fact that over 1.1 million additional people now live in Los Angeles.”178

On average, the city receives 52 percent of its water from the Metropolitan Water District, which sources its water from the Colorado River and from the Bay Delta.179

A major earthquake in or near the Delta could interrupt water supplies for “up to three years posing a signi!cant and unacceptable risk to the California business economy.”180

METRICS169

(1) proximity to parks & access to open space, (2) air quality, and (3) water supply & quality.

Environmental QualityFACT SHEET


The environment where people

live, work, and play is a key

component of quality of life.

Environmental pollutants also have

a sizeable impact on health, “with

around one fourth of the global

burden of diseases deemed to be

associated with poor environmental

conditions.”181 While the health

impacts associated with our

surroundings are not always readily

apparent, our environs elicit a

visceral response. People intrinsically

“attach importance to the beauty

and the cleanliness of the place

where they live.”182

Although environmental conditions

in Los Angeles are not ideal, the

environmental quality of the city

and the region has been steadily

improving for decades. And there is

no sign that the trend will reverse.

Longtime residents of Los Angeles

(and air quality data) will tell you

that the smog that once de!ned

the image of the region is less

persistent. However, the area

continues to rank at the bottom of

the nation in terms of air quality.183 The Los Angeles-Long Beach

metropolitan area was ranked as

the second smoggiest large metro

region in the nation, just behind

Riverside-San Bernardino. In 2010,

the Los Angeles-Long Beach area

reported 69 smog days, meaning

that Los Angeles had unhealthy air

on 1 out of every 5 days. The city

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

also recorded three red-alert days, where “air quality was so poor that anyone

could experience adverse health effects.” Furthermore, “sensitive populations

-- children, the elderly, and people with respiratory illness -- could experience

worse effects.”184 That’s not good, but things are much better than they were.

In 1976, the entire Southern Coast Basin (including Los Angeles, Long Beach,

Riverside and San Bernardino) reported over 200 smog days. That number

shrunk to 163 by 1990, and was below 100 by 2001.185

More recently, the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles have implemented

regulations to curb emissions of diesel particulate matter, one of the

more toxic air pollutants. There has been an 80 percent reduction in

diesel particulate matter at the ports since the clean trucks program was

SMOGGIEST LARGE METROPOLITAN AREAS

NUMBER OF SMOG DAYS IN 2010NUMBER OF

RED ALERT DAYS IN 2010

69

33

33

29

27

23

23

23

19

110 24

3

6

3

3

1

1

1

0

4

RIVERSIDE-SAN BERNARDINO

LOUISVILLE

ST. LOUIS

HOUSTON

PHILADELPHIA

WASHINGTON, D.C.

LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH

BALTIMORE

SACRAMENTO

ATLANTA

Abrams, C. (2011). Danger in the Air: Unhealthy Air Days in 2010 and 2011. Boston, MA: Environment America.


implemented in 2005.186 The California Air Resources Board has approved a statewide regulation that should deliver

similar results across the state. The estimated effect will be a daily reduction of 13 tons of diesel particulate matter by

2014.187

But incremental improvements should not take away from the urgency of the issue. In spite of the gains made

in environmental quality over the last half century, the negative impacts associated with poor air quality fall

disproportionately on low-income communities of color.188

Compared to whites, African American and Latino residents are more than three times as likely to live close to

hazardous facilities. They are also more likely to live in the region’s most polluted areas, including neighborhoods near

2,185

TONS

1,503

TONS

1,004

TONS

2,025

TONS

2006 2008 2009 201120072005

CLEAN TRUCKS REGULATIONS Diesel particulate matter emissions by year

New regulations to curb emissions of diesel particulate matter are already showing promise.At the Los Angeles & Long Beach port complex,

dieselemissions

have beenreduced

by 80% since 2007.

1,565

TONS

313

TONS

the Los Angeles-Long

Beach Ports complex,

and neighborhoods in

South Los Angeles.189

Middle- and high-

income African

Americans and

Latinos don’t fare any

better. Their “cancer

risk estimates for air

toxics exposures are

consistently about 50%

higher” when compared

to Caucasians.190

In terms of water,

the region is heavily

dependent on

increasingly volatile

sources of imported

water to meet its

needs. The city imports

nearly 90 percent of its

water.191

Port of Los Angeles & Port of Long Beach (2010). 2010 Update: San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan. Los Angeles, CA.Port of Los Angeles (2012). Port of Los Angeles Clean Truck Program Fact Sheet. Los Angeles, CA.


WATER USE PER CAPITA

1979 2010POPULATION

4 MILLION

WATER USE 550,000 ACRE FEET

WATER USE PER CAPITA122 GALLONS

POPULATION2.8 MILLION

WATER USE 550,000 ACRE FEET

WATER USE PER CAPITA175 GALLONS

LOS ANGELES’ WATER USAGE IN 2010 WAS THE SAME AS 1979 despite an increase in population of over 1,000,000 residents.

One of the biggest sources for LA (and Southern California) is the Bay Delta in Northern California. This “hub of

California’s water delivery system” has had its output restricted due to environmental degradation.192 A variety of

factors, including agricultural runoff and the use of water pumps that alter the water’s natural "ow, have severely

degraded the Bay Delta’s natural ecosystem. A series of regulations have been implemented to restore the area’s

natural habitats, but the restrictions have had the cumulative effect of reducing supplies by about 30 percent in an

average year.193

On top of that, the Delta is ill-equipped to handle a major "ood or earthquake in the near term. A major seismic event

or a large "ood could introduce salt water into a freshwater system, making it unsuitable for agricultural or urban

uses. The Delta is protected by an antiquated system of levees built more than a century ago. These earthen barriers

that protect “low-lying islands, farmland, three state highways, a railroad, and several utility lines are weak and widely

expected to fail in the event of an earthquake.”194 Without adequate preparation and mitigation measures, water

deliveries to Southern California can be disrupted for “up to three years posing a signi!cant and unacceptable risk to

the California business economy.”195 That amounts to 21 million people facing a water shortage196 that would cost the

state over $40 billion in economic losses, or twice the cost of the Northridge earthquake.197

Given this reality, the region has made enormous strides in reducing the per capita consumption of water in Los

Angeles. Average water use from 2005 to 2010 is about the same as it was in 1981, despite the addition of over 1.1

million people to the local population. As a result, Los Angeles consistently ranks among the lowest in per person water

consumption rates when compared to California’s largest cities.198

Indeed, the story of environmental quality in Los Angeles is one of tremendous progress. While there are still missed

opportunities, the region’s environmental trajectory is promising.

And with that hopeful note, we move onto another positive story:

PUBLIC SAFETY.

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (2010). Urban Water Management Plan. Los Angeles, CA.


DASHBOARD RATINGEnhances human development

Public Safety was found to enhance human development in Los Angeles, earning a light green

designation. Crime rates are at historic lows throughout the county. Still, the experience of crime and

perceptions of safety still vary widely along racial and socioeconomic lines.

KEY FINDINGS:Mirroring national trends, Los Angeles’ crime rate has steadily declined over the past two decades. As of 2010, there

were about 29 incidents per 1,000 residents, lower than the national average of 30.37 and higher than the average for large cities with populations of over 500,000 (50.19).200

Crime rates have reached historic lows, with the homicide rate in 2010 the lowest since 1966. The LA Times notes that “nearly every type of offense, including robberies, rapes, burglaries and thefts” continue to decline in spite of the economic downturn.201

Crime rates per capita vary widely throughout the city. In Watts there are 310 violent crimes per 10,000 people; in Bel-Air there are 2.202

Neighborhoods with perceived social disorder and a lack of “collective ef!cacy” are more associated “with crime- related outcomes.”203

In Los Angeles, higher rates of ethnic diversity tends to be associated with increased perceptions of safety in both neighborhoods204 and schools.205

Foreign-born residents and recent immigrants are less likely to commit and be victims of crime in Los Angeles (and nationally).206

U.S. born men “are incarcerated at a rate over two-and-a-half times greater than that of foreign-born men.”207

California cities like Los Angeles “that had a higher share of recent immigrants saw their crime rates fall further than cities with a lower share.”208

The LAPD has nearly 10,000 police of!cers patrolling an area of 473 square miles and a population of just under 4 million inhabitants.209 That translates to roughly 2.6 of!cers for every 1,000 residents, a number just on par with the national average, but below other large cities such as New York (4.2), Chicago (4.4), and Philadelphia (4.3).210

Los Angeles’ physical footprint is larger than Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, Manhattan, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, and St. Louis combined. Yet, the city “has fewer than half the police offers of all those cities combined.”211

“Though Los Angeles is under-policed compared to cities such as New York and Chicago, 8 of the nation’s 15 biggest cities have fewer of!cers per capita.”212

METRICS199

(1) per capita crime rates, and (2) perceptions of crime and safety.

Public SafetyFACT SHEET


Safety and security is “a core

element for the well-being of

individuals and society as a

whole.”213 Crime can lead to

loss of life and property; it has

detrimental physical and mental

health consequences; it can reduce

economic productivity; and, most

detrimentally, it creates a pervasive

feeling of vulnerability.214

The reality and perception of safety

in Los Angeles is a remarkable bright

spot in the malaise of the current

recession.

Against all economic odds, and

contrary to the common perception

of the region, crime rates are the

lowest that they’ve been in decades,

and they’re continuing to drop.215

The region has mirrored the national

trend of steadily declining levels

of crime in recent decades. Violent

crime fell almost 10 percent during

the !rst six months of 2010. That

year, the city reported fewer than

300 homicides, the fewest since

1966.216

Still, the experience of crime and

safety in Los Angeles depends on

who you are and where you live.217

Areas of concentrated poverty

with less ethnic diversity are more

likely to experience higher levels of

crime.218 The citywide violent crime

rate is 56 incidents for every 10,000

residents. But in Watts that number

jumps to 310 incidents; in Exposition

Park the !gure is 195 incidents.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Compare that to higher-income locations like Pico-Robertson, Bel-Air, and

Century City.219 Each of them report fewer than 21 incidents of violent crime

per 10,000 capita, with Century City reporting fewer than 2 incidents for every

10,000 residents.

Given those statistics, it should come as no surprise that people in low-income

neighborhoods are more likely to perceive their environment as unsafe.220

Areas “with higher levels of violence have a greater share of high school

drop outs, individuals below poverty, households receiving welfare,” and a

higher unemployment rate.221 Los Angeles neighborhoods with the highest

35

70

105

140

175

210

245

280

315

350

MEDIAN INCOME

VIO

LEN

T C

RIM

ES P

ER 1

0,00

0 RE

SID

ENTS

Base

d o

n si

x m

onth

sum

ma

ry M

arc

h 5,

201

2-Se

pt.

2, 2

012

$100,000 $125,000 $150,000 $200,000$50,000 $75,000$25,000

WATTS - 310 CRIMES ($25,161)

FLORENCE - 325 CRIMES ($29,447)

EXPOSITION PARK - 193 CRIMES ($33,999)

ATWATER VILLAGE - 18 CRIMES ($53,872) WEST LOS ANGELES -

13 CRIMES ($86,403)

BEL-AIR - 2 CRIMES ($207,983)

PICO-ROBERTSON - 21 CRIMES ($63,356)

SOUTH PARK - 195 CRIMES ($29,518)

CRIME BY NEIGHBORHOOD

While crime in Los Angeles

is at its lowest rate in

decades, there are still

large disparities in how

residents in different parts

of the county experience

crime. Areas of

concentrated poverty

tend to have higher rates

of violent crime.

VIOLENT CRIMES DECREASEAS MEDIAN INCOME INCREASES

MORE CRIME

LESS CRIME

VIOLENT CRIMES VS MEDIAN INCOME

WATTS

FLORENCE

SOUTH PARK

EXPOSITION PARK

ATWATER VILLAGE

WEST LA PICO-ROBERTSON

BEL-AIR

Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA.


crime rates are predictably ethnically homogenous with high rates of poverty,

lending credence to the notion that community violence “is correlated with

multiple measures of disadvantage.”222

Angelenos who feel that they can work with family, friends, and neighbors to

bring about positive, collective change are also more likely to report feeling

safer.223 Surprisingly, it is the residents of ethnically diverse neighborhoods

who are more likely to feel that they can trust their neighbors.224

Which brings us to our next contrarian factoid. Even though there is a

IMMIGRANTS’ IMPACT ON CRIMECRIME RATE PER 10,000 PEOPLE BETWEEN 2000-2005 AND PERCENT FOREIGN BORN

-55

-35

-20 -3

-1

+1+30

+40

LOS

AN

GEL

ES 7

%

EL M

ON

TE 8

%

NO

RWA

LK 1

0%

RIVE

RSID

E 6%

THO

USA

ND

OA

KS

4%

BAK

ERSF

IELD

3%

SAC

RAM

ENTO

4%

PASA

DEN

A 4

%

LOS ANGELES, WITH ITS RELATIVELY LARGE SHARE OF IMMIGRANTS, HAS SEEN CRIME RATES DROP FASTER THAN IN OTHER CITIES WITH A SMALLER PROPORTION OF RECENT IMMIGRANTS.

7% FOREIGN BORN IN THE U.S. LESS THAN 5 YEARS

VIOLENT CRIME RATE FELLBY 55 PER 10,000 PEOPLE BETWEEN 2000 AND 2005

common misconception that

immigrant populations increase

crime, they are statistically unlikely

to perpetrate crime.

Compared to foreign-born men,

males born in the U.S. are more than

twice as likely to be incarcerated.

Los Angeles, with its large share of

immigrants, has seen crime rates

drop faster than in other cities with

a smaller proportion of foreign-born

people.225 Furthermore, residing in

an immigrant household reduced

the instance of experiencing youth

violence. Studies have found “that

youth from immigrant households

of Latin American origins have

signi!cantly reduced odds of more

serious forms of youth violence

relative to non-Latinos.”226 And

because this bears repeating,

ethnically diverse neighborhoods

encourage safety and reduce

criminal acts.227 In the case of public

safety, racial diversity is one of

Los Angeles’ greatest assets. This

diversity also affects how we interact

and connect with each other.

It affects our SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS.

Butcher, K.F., Piehl, A.M. (2008). Crime, Corrections, and California. California Counts: Population Trends and Pro!les. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.


Social Connectedness received an orange rating. The lower rates of trust, voting, and social

engagement in Los Angeles are not promising. In addition, levels of social connectedness are all

tied to educational attainment. Still, research shows that lower levels of social interaction and civic

engagement are typical in large, diverse regions like Los Angeles.

KEY FINDINGS:

Like other urban communities in the southwest that were surveyed – Houston, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco,

indices.229

In ethnically diverse places like Los Angeles or Houston, college graduates are 4 or 5 times more likely to be politically involved than their fellow residents who did not get past high school. In ethnically less diverse places like Montana or New Hampshire, the class gaps in political participation are less than half that large.230

Los Angeles metropolitan statistical area has a volunteerism rate of 21.5 percent, lower than San Francisco’s 29.7 percent rate. In Los Angeles, 2.1 million adults volunteered, ranking the city 46th among the largest 51 metro areas.231

For age groups of 18 and over, voting in Los Angeles is dismal. The national average is 41.8 percent, while Los Angeles’s rate is 36 percent.232 San Francisco, by comparison, has a voting rate of 42.4 percent.233

While fewer than 1 in 12 people with less than a high school education report voting in presidential elections, the number jumps to 1 in 3 for high school graduates. The rate is 3 in 4 for college graduates. And it is 9 in 10 for those with a graduate degree.234

Los Angeles scores are comparable to the national average for diversity of friendships.235

Thirty-six percent of Angelenos say that people can be trusted; 55 percent say you can’t be too careful; and 9 percent say that it depends. This pro!le is a less trusting one than the national pro!le, in which 47 percent say people can be trusted, 46 percent say you can’t be too careful, and 7 percent say that it depends.236

Fewer Angelenos expect to remain in their communities; 66 percent of Angelenos expect to be living in their current community 5 years from now, compared to 76 percent nationally.237

In Los Angeles 31 percent rate their community as an “excellent” place to live, 44 percent “good,” 21 percent “fair” and 4 percent “poor.” Nationally, the numbers are 41 percent (excellent), 44 percent (good), 13 percent (fair), and 2 percent (poor).238

Thirty-seven percent of Angelenos do not discuss politics at all, while almost 28 percent report discussing politics frequently239; the numbers are on par with national averages of 36.6 percent and 26 percent, respectively.240 Seven percent reported contacting a public of!cial241 (compared to about 10 percent nationally242).

Angelenos read the newspaper less often than the national average (2.8 days versus 3.3 days).243

METRICS228

(1) volunteerism, (2) voting, and (3) civic and social engagement.


Social ConnectednessFACT SHEET


SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS

37. 1%MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL

36.2%PORTLAND

34.2%SALT LAKE CITY

33.9%SEATTLE

LOS ANGELES 21.5%

19.9 % RIVERSIDE

LAS VEGAS 19%

33.8%ROCHESTER

21.4% RALEIGH

17.2 % NEW YORK

15.2% MIAMI

RATES OF VOLUNTEERISM IN LARGE AMERICAN CITIESIt is worth noting that cities with large minority populations and cities with the highest income inequality (i.e., New York and Miami) are also at the bottom of that list.

In terms of volunteerism, Los Angeles ranks near the bottom of large U.S. cities.

LESS VOLUNTEERISM

MORE VOLUNTEERISM

Social connectedness attempts to measure the frequency of our contact with others and quality of our personal

relationships. For this report, we’ve also included the element of civic and social engagement into this measure. The

fundamental nature of human social bonds makes it one of the “crucial determinants of well-being.”244 But data on the

subject is nascent. It’s a hard concept to capture, and it’s a dif!cult research question to quantify.

Los Angeles is socially disjointed and strati!ed.245 The city’s connectedness indicators are perhaps the most concrete

(and disheartening) manifestation of LA’s inadequate education system.

For Angelenos, social interactions, civic engagement, and social capital are all heavily dependent on education.

Angelenos with higher levels of education are more engaged with their community, both civically and socially. In the

same vein, higher levels of income are associated with higher rates of giving and larger social networks.246

National Conference on Citizenship (2011). Civic Life in America. Washington, D.C


Compared to the nation, Angelenos are less likely to be involved in groups, less likely to engage in organizational

activism, less likely to vote, less likely to be engaged in faith-based organizations, less likely to socialize informally, and

less likely to be trusting.247

That’s depressing, but it makes sense. Participating in any society relies on some basic level of interpersonal trust. And

trust is a byproduct of education. Social trust “increases with education across the scale, with a big jump corresponding

to having completed a four-year college degree.”248

If you’ve !nished high school, you’re more likely to report trusting the local police; you’re more likely to trust the clerks

where you shop; you’re more likely to trust your coworkers; and you’re more likely to trust your neighbors.249 You’re

more likely to trust that the society that helped you get an education, earn an income, and that provides you with a

certain quality of life will be able to deliver more. If you were denied the bene!ts associated with that social system,

you’re less likely to be an active participant.

And that’s why Los Angeles suffers when it comes to social connectedness. We have a city with too many people who

have been failed by civic and social institutions. Too many Angelenos feel that society does not operate with their

interests at heart. Too many Angelenos have been left behind.

VOTING RATES BY EDUCATION LEVELSmall increases in education levels

signi!cantly increase voter participation rates.

HIGH SCHOOL

COLLEGE GRADUATE

GRADUATE DEGREE

1 IN 12 VOTE

1 IN 3 VOTE

3 IN 4 VOTE

9 IN 10 VOTE

LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL

And, once again, there is hope.

Levels of trust increase as people

acclimate to a place. Los Angeles is

a city of newcomers, but living here

“is apparently a positive enough

experience that, after 5 years,

residents voice trust in far greater

proportions than they do when they

are recent arrivals.”250 Furthermore,

small increases in education levels

yield signi!cant advantages. While

fewer than 1 in 12 people with less

than a high school education report

voting in presidential elections, the

number jumps to 1 in 3 for high

school grads. It’s 3 in 4 for college

grads. And it is 9 in 10 for those with

a graduate degree.251

In spite of the disjointed nature of

social connection in Los Angeles,

there are communities and social

networks that are thriving. One that

bucks the trend is the region’s arts

community.

Which opens our discussion ofARTS AND

CULTURAL VITALITY.California Community Foundation (n.d.). Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey: Data Highlights from the Los Angeles Sample. Los Angeles, CA.


earning our highest rating. The arts and cultural scene in Los Angeles is thriving, providing

residents with ample opportunities to participate in a variety of formal and informal activities. The

creative industries in the region are attracting a steady pool of artists and creative professionals.

Furthermore, the region is home to a variety of institutions that are training the next generation of

arts professionals.

KEY FINDINGS:There are 11,235 arts establishments in the county, translating to 0.88 per 1,000 residents (compared to 0.46 per

1,000 in New York and a national average of 0.64 per 1,000 capita).253

Los Angeles and Orange Counties are home to 66 institutions that offer degree programs in the creative industries, providing a pipeline to attract, train, and retain creative professionals.254

The City of Los Angeles has !ve National Association of Schools of Art and Design accredited schools: (1) American Film Institute; (2) California State University, Los Angeles; (3) Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising, Los Angeles; (4) Loyola Marymount University; and (5) Otis College of Art and Design.255

Los Angeles has the highest concentration of working artists and arts professionals in the U.S. With over 57,000 residents employed in arts occupations, it employs about 14 percent of the nation’s arts professionals and is the top net attractor of young artists.256

As a share of the metro area workforce, arts careers make up 1.01 percent of the area’s total employment, trailing the national average of 1.52 percent.257

There are 9.54 artist jobs per 1,000 people in Los Angeles. That’s higher than the national average of 5.95 jobs per 1,000 people, and higher than many other major metropolitan areas, including New York (7.24), San Francisco (7.2), Washington, D.C. (5.02), and Chicago (3.15).258

The city’s “high cost of living, high unemployment rates, and setbacks in the entertainment industry place its artist super-city status at risk.”259

LAUSD has led the way in creating a standards-based arts program that has served as the model for the countywide Arts for All program that has been adopted by school districts throughout Los Angeles County.260

LAUSD lacks a comprehensive arts program in middle schools, with fewer than 10 percent of middle schools receiving instruction in the four arts areas (dance, music, theatre, visual, and media arts).261

“Los Angeles Uni!ed’s arts program has been particularly hard hit [by recent budget cuts]. In 2008, there were 335 full-time elementary arts teachers. [In 2011], after state and federal funding dried up, there were about 250, according to district of!cials.”262

Los Angeles’ public arts expenditures ($9.62 million) are below the national average, and well below the levels seen in other major metropolitan areas including New York, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco.263

At $75.87 per capita, foundation and nonpro!t expenditures in support of the arts is above the national average($63.31), but it lags behind cultural hubs like Washington, D.C. ($654.19), San Francisco ($202.88), and New York ($259.45).264

METRICS252

(1) presence of opportunities for cultural participation, (2) participation in cultural and artistic activities, and (3) support for cultural participation.

DASHBOARD RATINGSigni!cantly enhances human developmentFACT SHEET


ARTS AND CULTURAL VITALITY

Arts and Cultural vitality relates to

the vibrancy and strength of the

region’s cultural, creative, and artistic

institutions. Public participation in

both formal (e.g., museums) and less

formal (e.g., community festivals)

arts and cultural events has direct

economic impacts265 and has direct

impacts on the iconic nature of a

place.266

Metropolitan Los Angeles is, in most

respects, the national leader in arts

and culture.

The city succeeds in attracting,

training and retaining a steady corps

of artists and creative professionals

in spite of the conspicuous lack

of a comprehensive arts-nurturing

policy.267

The city of Los Angeles is home to

the largest concentration of working

artists in the nation and is the top

net attractor of young artists.268 And

by that, we mean that for every artist

that moves out of LA, more than 2

move in.

The county boasts over 11,000 arts

establishments269, which makes it

possible for the area to support

more performing artists than New York.270 The LA metro area boasts 88 arts establishments for every 100,000 residents.

That’s almost twice as many as New York (46 establishments per 100,000 residents) and well above the national !gure

(64 establishments per 100,000 residents).271

In terms of employment, LA has over 570,000 residents employed in arts occupations. The city has over 9 artists jobs for

every 1,000 residents. That outpaces the national average of 6 jobs per 1,000 capita and surpassing cultural hubs like

New York (7 jobs/1,000 capita), San Francisco (7 jobs/1,000 capita), Washington, D.C. (5 jobs/1,000 capita), and Chicago

(3 jobs/1,000 capita).272

ARTS ESTABLISHMENTS PER 100,000 PEOPLE

LOS ANGELES 88

UNITED STATES 64

NEW YORK 46SAN FRANCISCO 40

CHICAGO 33

WASHINGTON, DC 29

LOS ANGELES HAS MORE

ART ESTABLISHMENTS PER CAPITA

THAN ANY OTHER METROPOLITAN AREA

IN THE UNITED STATES.

Urban Institute (2010). Arts and Culture Indicators Project Data: 2006-2008. Washington, D.C.


Local colleges and universities are

well-prepared to train the artists

that "ock to the region. Los Angeles

and Orange Counties are home

to nine independent visual and

performing arts colleges, 28 colleges

and universities, and 29 community

colleges that offer degree programs

in the creative industries.273

In spite of all this, funding for the

arts in Los Angeles is not on par

with other large cultural centers. The

region fails to match its peers when

it comes to expenditures on the arts.

Although we’re above the national

average, Los Angeles lags behind

comparable metropolitan areas in

per capita expenditures on arts and

culture. On this front, Washington,

D.C., New York, and San Francisco all

heartily beat our annual investment

of $125 per person.274

Experts also note that Los Angeles’

status as an arts hub is threatened

by the city’s “high cost of living, high

unemployment rates, and setbacks

in the entertainment industry.”275

Furthermore, there is no coherent

arts-retaining policy at either the city

or county level.276 These demerits

make it even more astonishing that

the arts and cultural scene in Los

Angeles is thriving. Given the relative

lack of institutional and structural

investment, this truly bright area

of the Los Angeles experience

should have already ceded to the

competition – but it hasn’t.

Some of the resiliency of the Los

Angeles arts and culture community

comes from its variety. The largest

employment areas in the creative

industries involve diverse sectors,

including entertainment, fashion,

visual and performing arts, and

furniture and home furnishings.277

ART EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA

LOS ANGELES LAGS BEHINDcomparable metropolitan areas in per capita expenditures on arts and culture.

On this front, Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco all heartily beat our annual investment of $125 per person.

$654.20

$242.45

$125.68

$100.79

WASHINGTON, D.C.

NEW YORK

SAN FRANCISCO

LOS ANGELES

UNITED STATES

CHICAGO

$259.45

$96.66

Furthermore, the arts have proven to be a major force for self-ef!cacy and

entrepreneurship. Los Angeles County’s creative industries had over 100,000

independent !rms in 2008. The largest sector included “independent artists,

writers and performers.”278 Among that group, there are nearly two self-

employed artists in the visual & performing arts for every employee on payroll.

The ratio is nearly one-to-one for communications arts (e.g. graphic design);

and for every 5 payroll employees in art galleries, there are 6 independent

workers.279

The dynamic LA arts scene continues to expand and evolve in unexpected

and astonishing ways. But to continue to outpace its competitors, Los Angeles

must keep the in-migration pipeline "owing. It must recruit, train, and retain

the next generation of creative artists.

We’ve come to the end of our indicators and we hope we’ve painted a

suf!ciently detailed portrait of this vast and diverse metropolitan region.

We’ve explained who we are, and we’ve extracted the high points of how we

live. But one question remains.

Urban Institute (2010). Arts and Culture Indicators Project Data: 2006-2008. Washington, D.C.


Which brings us to WHY THIS MATTERS.The condition of Los Angeles today matters because who we are and how we live now sets us on a

course for who we will be and how we will live tomorrow. Our current condition is putting us on a

trajectory towards a future that may not look like anyone’s idea of a successful place. While we have

revealed some surprising bright spots (lower crime rates, improved environmental conditions, stellar

cultural vitality), other indicators – like education, income, and housing – paint a picture of growing

disparity that bode ill for the region’s overall sense of well-being.

Now that we have a picture of how we live today, let’s draw upon demographic projections to imagine

how we might live tomorrow, if we continue on our current trajectory. If we don’t like where we are

headed, this being Los Angeles, we can rewrite the script and imagine a better destination. We can

draw on the extraordinary collective spirit of creativity and ambition of the region to envision this

brighter LA of 2050.

And once we know where we want to go, we can work backwards to create a plan to increase our

chances of arrival at the LA2050 of our aspirations, instead of drifting into the LA2050 of our fears.

But to know where we’re going, we need to know WHO WE WILL BE. Earlier, we noted that Los Angeles’ population is growing older, with a populace that is increasingly

made up of native Californians. That trend is likely to continue in coming decades. By 2050, the county

population will reach an estimated 12.5 million residents.280 The demographic shifts that characterized

the last half of the 20th Century will not be as dramatic. The growth in the Latino residents and the

decline in the white populace aren’t as pronounced. Asians and Paci!c Islanders and African American

populations are projected to remain relatively stable.


Racial and Ethnic Make-UpLatinos will constitute the majority of

Angelenos by 2020. By 2050 this demographic

group will comprise almost 57 percent of the

county population, an increase of 9 percent

from its current !gure. Whites will remain

the second largest ethnic group, but the

proportion of Caucasians will shrink to just

under 19 percent, representing a 10 percent

drop from current !gures. The third largest

racial/ethnic group will be Asians and Paci!c

Islanders. With a slight 3 percent rise in this

group’s proportion of the county population,

this racial/ethnic category will comprise

about 17 percent of the population. African

Americans will continue to diminish as a share

of the populace, comprising about 7 percent

of county residents, down 2 percent from

current levels.281

Our OriginsIn coming decades the foreign-born

population is projected to decline slightly, due

to the sharp decrease in immigration. Peaking

at 36.3 percent in 2000, the proportion of

foreign-born Angelenos is expected to drop

slightly to 32.6 percent in 2050, down nearly

three percent from current levels. California

natives will make up the majority (56 percent)

of the population in 2050, climbing seven

percent from current levels.282






19 WOULD BE WHITE57 WOULD BE LATINO7 WOULD BE AFRICAN AMERICAN17 WOULD BE ASIAN

2050IF LOS ANGELES WERE A VILLAGE OF 100 PEOPLE


Aging PopulationLos Angeles will see a rapidly aging population in coming decades, mirroring the national trend. A simple way of

demonstrating this shift is by looking at the senior ratio, “an index that divides the number of people who are ages 65

and older by the total who are ages 25 to 64.”283 In the county, the state, and the nation, the “number of seniors per

100 residents of prime working age was virtually constant for the last four decades.”284 As the baby boom generation

(born 1946 to 1964) began to pass the age of 65 in the late 2000s, the senior ratio began to rise dramatically.

CALIFORNIA NATIVES U.S. MIGRANTSFOREIGN BORN

86%5%9%


49%12%39%


28%19%52%


20%36%45%

PERCENTAGE OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY POPULATION BY AGE AND BIRTHPLACE

20100-19 20-39 40-59 60+


85%5%10%


61%12%27%


41%13%46%


25%20%54%

20300-19 20-39 40-59 60+



In Los Angeles County there were about 20 seniors for every 100 working age adults in 2010. The state !gure was about

21 seniors per 100 working age adults, and the national !gure sat at about 25 seniors. By 2050, there will be 40 seniors

for every 100 working adults in LA County. Figures for California (41 seniors) and the U.S. (42) will rise dramatically as

well.285

This will have serious implications as we plot our course moving forward. As demographers note, Los Angeles is facing a

“growing loss of our productive population.”286 Health care professionals warn that our current system is “inadequately

prepared in geriatrics,” and our health care “work-force is not large enough to meet older patients’ needs.” By 2030,

the U.S. will need “an additional 3.5 million formal health care providers – a 35 percent increase from current levels –

just to maintain the current ratio of providers to the total population.”287

As the state’s Health and Human Services Agency notes, “California’s sheer size, diversity, and large older adult

population make it a barometer of how the nation will grapple with the challenges and opportunities of population

aging.”288 Los Angeles, the state’s largest and most diverse metropolitan region, may well serve as a barometer for

California.

The Angelenos of 2050 will, for the most part, be native-Californians. They will be diverse, and they will be older. We

are already beginning to see these changes manifest themselves, as evidenced in the county’s most recent demographic

pro!le. It’s imperative that we understand that the decisions and actions we take today will shape the outcomes for the

12.5 million county residents of the future.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

RATIO OF SENIORS (65+) PER 100 WORKING AGE (25-64) FROM 1970-2050

20101970 2050

USCALIFORNIALA COUNTY



Now that we have an understanding of who we will be, we can now begin to contemplate

WHERE WE’RE GOING IF WE CHOOSE TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO.

Based on our analysis of our current conditions and the trajectory of each of the eight indicators that we’ve examined,

we’ve created a dashboard that projects where LA will be in 2050 if we continue along the same path. We consulted

with the LA2050 Academic Advisory committee to gather their input about the future of Los Angeles, and their

contributions are re"ected in the dashboard. We used the same rating system that we devised to examine the eight

indicators in 2013:

As we noted earlier, these projections are not meant to imply any numeric calculation or weighted score. It’s our best

guess, informed by the most recent body of research, and in consultation with academics and experts in the !eld. It is

an un"inching glimpse of our future based on our assessment of how we live today. With that, we present our prediction

of how the Los Angeles of 2050 will fare along the eight indicators analyzed in this report if we stay on our current path:

EDUCATION in 2050 will “signi!cantly hinder human development,” if we stay on our current course. While the

largest school district in the county (LAUSD) is making incremental improvements in test scores and graduation rates,

these accomplishments aren’t enough to drastically shift the prospects of the K-12 cohort in 2050. The onslaught of

state budget cuts aimed at local school districts and the public higher education system does not bode well for the

region’s education landscape in 2050. If the state continues to divest in early childhood education, and if local school

districts continue to provide inadequate college preparatory coursework, then the learners of 2050 will be no better

situated to compete in an economy that increasingly depends on a highly-educated workforce.289

INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT in 2050 also receives our lowest ranking. Based, in part, on the region’s poor

education system and on the region’s lack of a coherent economic development strategy aimed at creating good-paying

jobs in growth sectors, we don’t foresee the income and employment situation getting much better. Income and wealth

in the region is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It’s a trend that’s been unfolding nationwide for decades;

at the moment, there isn’t any clear policy at the federal, state, or local levels to reverse that trend. Furthermore, the

area’s demographic make-up (with a large share of the population being Latino and African American) implies that the

region will persistently suffer from elevated rates of unemployment. Based on these factors, the Los Angeles of 2050 will

continue to be a region of haves and have-nots.

SIGNIFICANTLY HINDERS HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

HINDERS HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

ENHANCES HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

SIGNIFICANTLY ENHANCES HUMAN DEVELOPMENT


HOUSING in 2050 is also predicted to “signi!cantly hinder human development.” This analysis is based on the

substantial affordability gap that still confronts the region. Without a drastic increase in average household incomes and

without signi!cant growth in the number of housing units that are affordable to low- and middle-income earners, Los

Angeles in 2050 will remain a place where housing isn’t available to young wager-earners, families, seniors and much of

the middle class.

HEALTH in 2050 is predicted to remain a “hindrance to human development,” earning an orange rating. Better

environmental quality and the prospect of universal health care hold the promise of lifting the health landscape for

all Angelenos. Still, the region lacks a cohesive strategy to address the disparities in health outcomes along racial and

socioeconomic lines. While we do think that Angelenos of the future will have better access to healthcare and will

generally be healthier, we still anticipate that health outcomes for the area’s large low- and middle-income communities

of color to be worse than average. Moreover, our inadequate preparation to meet geriatric healthcare needs could

prove signi!cant in a region where the senior ratio is expected to double by 2050.

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY in 2050 moves from “hindering human development” to “enhancing human

development.” Los Angeles’ air quality is steadily improving. Plans, policies, and initiatives in the works are having

demonstrably positive effects, and track record of past decades is encouraging. The state has identi!ed the Bay-Delta

as a serious issue, and mitigation plans are currently underway as of!cials devise a permanent solution. Local water

agencies are increasing their share of local water sources that are more sustainable and secure. The environment of

2050 will almost certainly be better than it is today if we continue down our current path.

PUBLIC SAFETY in 2050 is also anticipated to “enhance human development.” Given the correlation between a

youthful population and the incidence of crime290, a Los Angeles comprised of many more older residents in 2050 will

likely see crime rates drop further. The experience of crime and perceptions of safety throughout the region are still

anticipated to vary widely based on geographic and socioeconomic factors.

SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS in 2050 is anticipated to “hinder human development.” Positive factors include

a more rooted population. Los Angeles in 2050 will be home to more native-Californians than in any other period in

recent history. As we’ve noted, living in a place for an extended period of time increases social connections within

communities. Weighing heavily against any improvement in this metric, however, is the dismal education system.

Education levels are highly correlated with levels of social connectedness, and we don’t foresee a dramatically different

education landscape for Los Angeles if we continue on our current course. Additionally, it is increasingly dif!cult for

young adults in the region to !nd a well-paying job, locate affordable housing, and raise a family, threatening the

rootedness that fosters increased social connections.

ARTS AND CULTURAL VITALITY in 2050 is expected to go from “signi!cantly enhancing human

development” (green) to “enhancing human development” (light green). The primary reason for this projection is the

fact that Los Angeles lacks a coherent arts-nurturing policy at the local or regional level. Likewise, if public support for

the arts continues to diminish as it has in recent decades, the region may cede some of its arts and cultural dominance

to other locales. Still, arts and cultural communities have thrived in LA in spite of challenges in the past, and we expect

that Los Angeles will remain an attractive place for artists and arts professionals in the future.

With that, we’ve concluded the !rst part of the LA2050 narrative. We’ve explained who we are, how we live today, and

where we’re going tomorrow if the status quo isn’t challenged. This installment in the series was intended to inform, but

it is also the starting point for a new dialogue. If you don’t like our projections for the LA of the future, then it’s up to all

of us to chart a different (more hopeful) course.


INDICATOR

EDUCATION

INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT

HOUSING

HEALTH

PUBLIC SAFETY

SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS

LA2050 DASHBOARD

2013 2050

Signi!cantly hinders human development

Hinders human development

Enhances human development

Signi!cantly enhances human development


In a place where dreams are the most valuable currency and where innovation is rampant, the future of Los Angeles is a script in need of serious revision. We invite you to explore a vision of a more successful Los Angeles – one that empowers our denizens and takes full advantage of the vast potential that this region holds.

AFTER ALL, THE STORY OF LOS ANGELES IS THE STORY OF HOPE.


LA2050 ACKNOWLEDGMENTSLA2050 would like to thank the experts, academics, practitioners, and supporters that contributed their time and expertise to help steer this important effort. We’d like to thank everyone who was a part of this effort, but would like to acknowledge the LA2050 Academic Advisory Committee members, Interviewees, and Contributors listed below.

Adlai WertmanProfessor of Clinical Management and OrganizationFounding Director of the Society and Business Lab at University of Southern California

Daniel FlamingPresident, Economic Roundtable

Dr. Caprice YoungVice President for Education#Laura and John Arnold Foundation

Dr. Dowell MyersProfessor, University of Southern CaliforniaDirector, Population Dynamics Research Group

Dr. Edward BlakelyHonorary Professor of Urban Policy at the United States Studies Centre at the#University of Sydney

Dr. Janis BreidenbachAdjunct Associate Professor, University of Southern California

Dr. Manuel PastorProfessor of Sociology and American Studies and Ethnicity#at University of Southern California

Dr. Maria Rosario JacksonConsultant, instructor, and writer in the !elds of urban planning, community development and arts and culture

Dr. Marlon BoarnetProfessor, University of Southern CaliforniaDirector, Graduate Programs in Urban Planning

Dr. Martin WachsDistinguished Professor Emeritus in Urban Planning at the University of California, Los Angeles Luskin School of Public Affairs

Dr. Matthew KahnProfessor, Institute of the Environment, Department of Public Policy, Department of Economics at the University of California, Los Angeles Luskin School of Public Affairs

Dr. Richard GreenProfessor, University of Southern CaliforniaDirector and Chair of the USC Lusk Center for Real Estate the Sol Price School of Public Policy at University of Southern California

Dr. Stephanie PincetlAdjunct Professor, University of California, Los Angeles Director of the California Center for Sustainable Communities at University of California, Los Angeles

Adlai WertmanProfessor of Clinical Management and OrganizationFounding Director of the Society and Business Lab at University of Southern California

Brian StetcherAssociate Director, RAND Education Senior Social ScientistProfessor, Pardee RAND Graduate School

Catherine AtkinsExecutive Director Preschool California

Daniel FlamingEconomic Roundtable

Dr. Caprice YoungVice President for Education#Laura and John Arnold Foundation


Dr. David SloanProfessor and Director at the Sol Price School of Public Policy at University of Southern California

Dr. Dowell MyersProfessor, University of Southern CaliforniaDirector, Population Dynamics Research Group at the Sol Price School of Public Policy at University of Southern California Dr. Edward BlakelyHonorary Professor of Urban Policy at the United States Studies Centre at the#University of Sydney

Dr. Fernando Torres-GilProfessor of Social WelfareProfessor of Public PolicyDirector of the Center for Policy Research on Aging at University of California, Los Angeles

Dr. Janis BreidenbachAdjunct Professor at the Sol Price School of Public Policy at University of Southern California

Dr. Manuel PastorProfessor of Sociology and American Studies and Ethnicity#at University of Southern California

Dr. Maria Rosario JacksonUniversity of Southern California

Dr. Marlon BoarnetProfessor#Director of Graduate Programs in Urban Planning at the Sol Price School of Public Policy at University of Southern California

Dr. Martin WachsDistinguished Professor Emeritus in Urban Planning at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs

Mary Leslie Executive Director, Los Angeles Business Council

Dr. Matthew KahnProfessor, Institute of the Environment, Department of Public Policy, Department of Economic at University of California, Los Angeles Luskin School of Public Affairs

Dr. Richard GreenProfessor#Director and Chair of the USC Lusk Center for Real Estate the Sol Price School of Public Policy at University of Southern California

Dr. Richard JacksonProfessor and Chair of Environmental Health Sciences and Professor of the Institute of the Environment & Sustainability and Urban Planning at University of California, Los Angeles

Dr. Stephanie PincetlDirector of the California Center for Sustainable Communities at University of California, Los Angeles

John BlankDeputy Chief Economist#for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp

Karen ConstinePublic Affairs & Arts/Cultural Management Consulting

CONTRIBUTORS Aaron PaleyPresident and Co-Founder, CARS

Adlai WertmanProfessor and Founding Director of Society and Business Lab at University of Southern California Marshall School of Business

Allison Graff-WeisnerExecutive Director of City Year Los Angeles

Amita SwadhinLos Angeles Executive Director, Peer Health Exchange

Andy LipkisExecutive Director, TreePeople

Bea StotzerBoard President, NEW Economics for Women


Bettina KorekFounder and Executive Director, ForYourArt

Carl CadeReal Estate Developer & InvestorEducation Entrepreneur

Danny CorwinCFO, California Charter Schools Association

David ConfortiDirector of Special Projects at Annenberg Foundation

David FlaksCOO, Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation

David LevinsonFounder and Executive Director, Big Sunday

Jennifer FerroGeneral Manager, KCRW

Jennifer PerryExecutive Director, Children’s Action Network

Jill BaumanPresident and CEO, ImagineLA

Joel SappellDeputy for Special Projects for L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky

Justin VeachAssociate Director of Cultural Programs at Library Foundation of Los AngelesKa! Blumen!eldPresident and CEO of Liberty Hill Foundation

Karen MackCEO and Founder, LA Commons

Laurie OchoaArts and Entertainment Editor at The Los Angeles Times

Lee CondonOwner of Pacesetter Productions, former LAUSD Chief of Staff

Marcia AaronExecutive Director, KIPP LA

Mark GoldAssociate Director and Adjunct Professor, University of California, Los Angeles Institute of the Environment and Sustainability

Mia LehrerPresident Mia Lehrer + Associates

Michael KellyFormer Executive Director, the Los Angeles Coalition

Michelle Rhone-CollinsExecutive Director, LIFT-LA

Neil FromerExecutive DirectorResnick Institute at California Institute of Technology

Nike IrvinVice President of Programs, California Community Foundation

Omar BrownsonExecutive Director, Los Angeles River Revitalization Corporation

Rafael GonzalezFormer Chief Service Of!cer & Director of Neighborhood & Community Services, Of!ce of Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa

Ruben GonzalezBoard Member, US-Mexico Border Philanthropy Partnership


END NOTES1 Graham, C. (2011). The Pursuit of Happiness: An Economy of Well-Being. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

2 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). Compendium of OECD Well-Being Indicators. Paris, France. Retrieved from: <http://www.oecd.org/document/28/0,3746,en_2649_201185_47916764_1_1_1_1,00.html>

3 Graham, C. (2011). The Pursuit of Happiness: An Economy of Well-Being. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

4 United Way. (2008). Quality of Life in Los Angeles: 2008 State of the County Report Update. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://unitedwayla.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/qualityo"ife_Apr2008.pdf>

5 Burd-Sharps, S., Lewis, K. (2011). A Portrait of California: California Human Development Report 2011. American Human Development Project.

6 Hanlon, P., Walsh, D., Whyte, B. (2006). Let Glasgow Flourish: A Comprehensive Report on Health and its Determinants in Glasgow and West Central Scotland. Glasgow Centre for Population Health. Glasgow, Scotland. Retrieved from: <http://www.understandingglasgow.com/assets/0000/4811/LetGlasgowFlourish_full.pdf>

7 Jackson, M.R., Kabwasa-Green, F., Herranz, J. (2006). Cultural Vitality in Communities: Interpretation and Indicators. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from: <http://www.urban.org/publications/311392.html>: 13.

8 Myers, D. (2011). The Future Demographic Outlook of Los Angeles. Population Dynamics Research Group, Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California. Los Angeles, CA: 2.

9 Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. (2008). Los Angeles County Pro!le. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.laedc.org/reports/LA%20County%20Pro!le.pdf>: 1

10 Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. (2008). Los Angeles County Pro!le. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.laedc.org/reports/LA%20County%20Pro!le.pdf>: 1

11 Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. (2011). Manufacturing: Still a Force in Southern California. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.laedc.org/reports/Manufacturing_2011.pdf>: 1

12 Myers, D. (2011). The Future Demographic Outlook of Los Angeles. Population Dynamics Research Group, Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California. Los Angeles, CA: 1

13 U.S. Census Bureau (2010). American Community Survey Select Social Statistics. Retrieved from: <http://fact!nder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_1YR_S1601&prodType=table>

14 Public Policy Institute of California. (2005). Los Angeles County: Just the Facts. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_LACountyJTF.pdf>

15 Myers, D. (2011). The Future Demographic Outlook of Los Angeles. Population Dynamics Research Group, Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California. Los Angeles, CA.


17 Myers, D. (2011). The Future Demographic Outlook of Los Angeles. Population Dynamics Research Group, Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California. Los Angeles, CA: 2-3.

18 Holland, G., Quinones, S. (2011). California Demographic Shift: More People Leaving Than Moving In. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: <http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-move-20111127,0,5338351.story>



20 County of Los Angeles. (2009). Annual Report 2009-2010. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://!le.lacounty.gov/lac/cms1_146766.pdf>: 12.






26 Shrestha, L.B., Heisler, E.J. (2011). The Changing Demographic Pro!le of the United States. Congressional Research Service. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32701.pdf>


28 Matsunaga, M. (2008). Concentrated Poverty in Los Angeles. Economic Roundtable. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.lachamber.com/clientuploads/LUCH_committee/052610_ConcentratedPoverty.pdf>: 4

29 Economic Roundtable. (2011). Unemployment and Under-Employment: Los Angeles County, California and the United States -- September 2011. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.economicrt.org/pub/Unemployment_Tracking/Unemployment%20&%20Under-employment%20Aug%202011.pdf>: 6

30 Blume, H. (2011). L.A. Uni!ed OKs ‘Doomsday Budget.’ Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/16/local/la-me-0216-lausd-budget-20110216>

31 The Education Trust-West. (2005). Preparing LAUSD High School Students for the 21st Century Economy: We Have the Way, But do We Have the Will? Oakland, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.cgu.edu/PDFFiles/Preparing%20LAUSD%20High%20School%20Students%20for%20the%2021st%20Century%20Economy%20-%20We%20Have%20The%20Way,%20But%20Do%20We%20Have%20The%20Will%202005.pdf>

32 Wolch, J., Wilson, J.P. & Fehrenbach, J. (2002). Parks and Park Funding in Los Angeles: An Equity Mapping Analysis. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Retrieved from: <http://biodiversity.ca.gov/Meetings/archive/ej/USC.pdf>

33 The Los Angeles Food Policy Task Force (2010). The Good Food for All Agenda: Creating a New Regional Food System for Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA: Retrieved from: <http://goodfoodlosangeles.!les.wordpress.com/2010/07/good-food-full_report_single_072010.pdf>: 9

34 South Coast Air Quality Management District (2008). Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) III Final Report. Diamond Bar, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/matesIII/MATESIIIFinalReportSept2008.html>: ES-4

35 U.S. Census Bureau (2010). American Community Survey, 2010 Summary Tables. Retrieved from: <http://fact!nder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_1YR_B19081&prodType=table>

36 Economic Roundtable. (2011). Unemployment and Under-Employment: Los Angeles County, California and the United States -- September 2011. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.economicrt.org/pub/Unemployment_Tracking/Unemployment%20&%20Under-employment%20Aug%202011.pdf>: 6


37 Trust for Public Land (2004). No Place to Play: A Comparative Analysis of Park Access in Seven Major Cities. San Diego, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.880cities.org/Articles/Trust%20for%20Public%20Land%20No%20Place%20To%20Play.pdf>


39 County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services. (2003). Obesity on the Rise. Department of Public Health. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/ha/reports/habriefs/lahealth073003_obes.pdf>: 2

40 California Budget Project. (2008). Locked Out 2008: A Pro!le of Califonia Counties. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2008/080213_CountyPro!les.pdf>: 16

41 U.S. Census Bureau (2010). American Community Survey Select Economic Statistics. Retrieved from: <http://fact!nder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_1YR_DP03&prodType=table>

42 The Education Trust-West. (2005). Preparing LAUSD High School Students for the 21st Century Economy: We Have the Way, But do We Have the Will? Oakland, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.cgu.edu/PDFFiles/Preparing%20LAUSD%20High%20School%20Students%20for%20the%2021st%20Century%20Economy%20-%20We%20Have%20The%20Way,%20But%20Do%20We%20Have%20The%20Will%202005.pdf>: 3

43 The metrics and sub-metrics for Education are listed below:For test scores, the research focused on the following: (1) academic Performance Index (API) of schools and students from K to 12For high school completion and dropout rates, the research focused on the following: (1) high school completion and dropout rates for students entering high school in 2006 and (2) high school completion/dropout rates for minority and low income studentsFor college-going rates, the research focused on the following: (1) students entering college from public schools and (2) students prepared to enter college For preschool enrollment, the research focused on the following: (1) enrollment of preschool age children and (2) levels of state and local funding of preschool programsFor afterschool and summer school enrichment program participation, the research focused on the following: (1) enrollment of students in afterschool and summer school programs and (2) spending on afterschool and summer school programs

44 California Department of Education. (2009). California Private School Kindergarten through Grade 12 Enrollment and Staff Report 2008-2009. Sacramento: California Department of Education. Retrieved from: <www.cde.ca.gov/ds/si/ps/documents/prvtschlsca0809.doc>: 13

45 Los Angeles Uni!ed School District. (2011). Fingertip Facts 2010-2011. LAUSD. Retrieved from: <http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/docs/PAGE/CA_LAUSD/LAUSDNET/OFFICES/COMMUNICATIONS/11-12FINGERTIPFACT_SCNOV.8.PDF>

46 Los Angeles Uni!ed School District. (2011). Fingertip Facts 2010-2011. LAUSD. Retrieved from: <http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/docs/PAGE/CA_LAUSD/LAUSDNET/OFFICES/COMMUNICATIONS/11-12FINGERTIPFACT_SCNOV.8.PDF>

47 Los Angeles Uni!ed School District. (2011). School Report Card ‘10-’11. LAUSD. Retrieved from: <http://getreportcard.lausd.net/reportcards/getpdf?language=ENG&grade_level=HIGHSCHOOL&school_name=&school_code=&location=LAUSD&school_year=2011&district=&partner=&prop=TCIBCfwDEq8ZVcVy%2B845cpt9NdNIwJRFLFVlTtUSwE08kvgrEG2z2xuN%2FAlpeQIdjPnhsq6V%2BXrF%0D%0Aq28UDVx4Gb9XSkg5tA7%2FebzJg39zN6ZvhSajTi15D2whz8olaC0vu99xVoRVqvOL4Ejxu1FAAQf2%0D%0A1KGwnCG3IXi%2Bg2SgXljplK6ADZb0U49D%2BnH5AJe4>: 4-5.

48 Los Angeles Uni!ed School District. (2011). School Report Card ‘10-’11. LAUSD. Retrieved from: <http://getreportcard.lausd.net/reportcards/getpdf?language=ENG&grade_level=HIGHSCHOOL&school_name=&school_code=&location=LAUSD&school_year=2011&district=&partner=&prop=TCIBCfwDEq8ZVcVy%2B845cpt9NdNIwJRFLFVlTtUSwE08kvgrEG2z2xuN%2FAlpeQIdjPnhsq6V%2BXrF%0D%0Aq28UDVx4Gb9XSkg5tA7%2FebzJg39zN6ZvhSajTi15D2whz8olaC0vu99xVoRVqvOL4Ejxu1FAAQf2%0D%0A1KGwnCG3IXi%2Bg2SgXljplK6ADZb0U49D%2BnH5AJe4>: 4

49 California Department of Education. (2010). DataQuest:Create Report. Retrieved from: <http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Acnt2011/2011GrowthDstApi.aspx?cYear=&allcds=1964733&cChoice=2011GDst2>


50 The Education Trust-West. (2005). California District Report Cards: Los Angeles Uni!ed School District -- 2010 API Scores. Oakland, CA. Retrieved from: <http://reportcards.edtrustwest.org/district-data?county=Los+Angeles&district=Los+Angeles+Uni!ed&report_year=2010>

51 California Department of Education. (n.d.). Educational Demographics Of!ce, Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of 2009-10, District Results for Los Angeles Uni!ed. Retrieved August 24, 2011, from: <http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/CohortRates/GradRates.aspx?Agg=D&Topic=Dropouts&TheYear=2009-10&cds=19647330000000&RC=District&SubGroup=Ethnic/Racial>

52Editorial Projects in Education (2011). Education Week Maps. School District Graduation Report. Bethesda, MD. Retrieved from: <http://www.edweek.org/apps/gmap/details.html?year=2011&zoom=10&type=2&id=622



55 Afterschool Alliance. (2010). America After 3 PM: Los Angeles After 3PM. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: <http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/documents/AA3PM_Los_Angeles_10202010.pdf>: 1

56 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011). Compendium of OECD Well-Being Indicators. Paris, France. Retrieved from: <http://www.oecd.org/document/28/0,3746,en_2649_201185_47916764_1_1_1_1,00.html >: 24


58 RAND Corporation (2005). The Effects of Universal Preschool Programs in California: Estimates for Los Angeles County. Santa Monica, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9164z1.html>: 1

59 RAND Corporation (2005). The Effects of Universal Preschool Programs in California: Estimates for Los Angeles County. Santa Monica, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9164z1.html>: 1

60 Rivera, C. (2011). California’s Preschool Spending Holds Steady in 2009-10, Report Says. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: <http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/26/local/la-me-preschool-20110426>

61 First 5 California Commisssion (n.d.). First Five California - About Us. Retrieved from: <http://www.ccfc.ca.gov/commission/about_us.asp>

62 Rivera, C. (2011). California’s Preschool Spending Holds Steady in 2009-10, Report Says. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: <http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/26/local/la-me-preschool-20110426>

63 Brown, E.G., Jr. (2012). Governor’s Budget Summary 2012-13. Department of Finance, Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/FullBudgetSummary.pdf>: 132

64 Yamamura, K. (2012). Jerry Brown’s Budget Proposes Killing Transitional Kindergarten Funds. The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved from: <http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/07/4169051/jerry-browns-budget-proposes-killing.html>



67 California Health Interview Survey (2009). Attends Preschool, Nursery School, or Head Start at Least 10 Hrs/Wk. Retrieved from: <http://www.chis.ucla.edu/main/DQ3/output.asp?_rn=0.327099>


68 Education Data Partnership (2011). District Pro!le: Fiscal Year 2009-10. Retrieved from: <http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/pro!le.asp?fyr=1011&county=19&district=64733&Level=06&reportNumber=16>

69 California Department of Education. (n.d.). Educational Demographics Of!ce, Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of 2009-10, District Results for Los Angeles Uni!ed. Retrieved from: <http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/CohortRates/GradRates.aspx?Agg=D&Topic=Dropouts&TheYear=2009-10&cds=19647330000000&RC=District&SubGroup=Ethnic/Racia>

70 Los Angeles Uni!ed School District. (2011). School Report Card ‘10-’11. LAUSD. Retrieved from: <http://getreportcard.lausd.net/reportcards/getpdf?language=ENG&grade_level=HIGHSCHOOL&school_name=&school_code=&location=LAUSD&school_year=2011&district=&partner=&prop=TCIBCfwDEq8ZVcVy%2B845cpt9NdNIwJRFLFVlTtUSwE08kvgrEG2z2xuN%2FAlpeQIdjPnhsq6V%2BXrF%0D%0Aq28UDVx4Gb9XSkg5tA7%2FebzJg39zN6ZvhSajTi15D2whz8olaC0vu99xVoRVqvOL4Ejxu1FAAQf2%0D%0A1KGwnCG3IXi%2Bg2SgXljplK6ADZb0U49D%2BnH5AJe4>: 2

71 California Department of Education. (n.d.). Educational Demographics Of!ce, Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of 2010-2011, District Results for Los Angeles Uni!ed. Retrieved from: <http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/CohortRates/GradRates.aspx?Agg=D&Topic=Dropouts&TheYear=2010-11&cds=19647330000000&RC=District&SubGroup=Ethnic/Racia>


73 Brown, E.G., Jr. (2012). Governor’s Budget Detail 2012-13: Education. Department of Finance, Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/GovernorsBudget/6000/6110.pdf>: EDU-24



76 Brown, E.G., Jr. (2012). Governor’s Budget Summary 2012-13. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/FullBudgetSummary.pdf>: 131

77 Abdollah, T. (2012). Education Of!cials Scramble to Assess Jerry Brown’s Budget Plan. 89.3 KPPC. Southern California Public Radio. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/01/05/30679/gov-brown-budget-cuts-education-funds-billion-UC/>

78 Abdollah, T. (2012). Education Of!cials Scramble to Assess Jerry Brown’s Budget Plan. 89.3 KPPC. Southern California Public Radio. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/01/05/30679/gov-brown-budget-cuts-education-funds-billion-UC/>

79 Baldassare, M., Bonner, D., Petek, S., Shrestha, J. (2011). Californians & Their Government. Public Policy Institute of California. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_1211MBS.pdf>: 6

80 Los Angeles Uni!ed School Distrct. (2011). News Release: LAUSD Continues Double-Digit Gains on the 2011 API Results. Retrieved from: <http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/docs/PAGE/CA_LAUSD/FLDR_LAUSD_NEWS/FLDR_ANNOUNCEMENTS_STUDENT_RESOURCES/API2011_0.PDF>

81 Los Angeles Uni!ed School Distrct. (2011). News Release: LAUSD Continues Double-Digit Gains on the 2011 API Results. Retrieved from: <http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/docs/PAGE/CA_LAUSD/FLDR_LAUSD_NEWS/FLDR_ANNOUNCEMENTS_STUDENT_RESOURCES/API2011_0.PDF>

82 The Education Trust-West. (2005). California District Report Cards: Los Angeles Uni!ed School District -- 2011 API Scores. Oakland, CA. Retrieved from: <http://reportcards.edtrustwest.org/district-data?county=Los+Angeles&district=Los+Angeles+Uni!ed&report_year=2011>

83 The Education Trust-West. (2005). Preparing LAUSD High School Students for the 21st Century Economy: We Have the Way, But do We Have the Will? Oakland, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.cgu.edu/PDFFiles/Preparing%20LAUSD%20High%20School%20Students%20for%20the%2021st%20Century%20Economy%20-%20We%20Have%20The%20Way,%20But%20Do%20We%20Have%20The%20Will%202005.pdf>



85 The metrics and sub-metrics for Income and Employment are listed below:For employment and unemployment, the research focused on the following: (1) rates of employment and unemployment in the U.S., California, and L.A. CountyFor household income, the research focused on the following: (1) median household income for Los Angeles CountyFor poverty, the research focused on the following: (1) federal & state poverty rates For family supportive wages, the research focused on the following: (1) minimum salary and wage needed to sustain a family in Los Angeles

86 Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012). The Employment Situation -- December 2012. U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf>: 6

87 Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012). Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: <http://www.bls.gov/jlt/#news>

88 Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012). The Employment Situation -- December 2012. U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf>: 1

89 State of California. (2012). California’s Labor Market at a Glance. Employment Development Department. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?PAGEID=4>

90 State of California. (2012). Los Angeles County Pro!le. Employment Development Department. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/localAreaPro!leQSResults.asp?selectedarea=Los+Angeles+County&selectedindex=19&menuChoice=localAreaPro&state=true&geogArea=0604000037>

91 Economic Roundtable. (2012). Getting to Work Unemployment and Economic Recovery in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.economicrt.org/pub/Getting_to_Work/Getting_to_Work_2012.pdf


93 U.S. Census Bureau (2011). American Community Survery Median Income California. Retrieved: <http://fact!nder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_1YR_S1903

94 Fannie Mae. (2012). Results of Area Median Income. Retrieved from: <https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/refmaterials/hudmedinc/hudincomeresults.jsp?STATE=CA

95 Los Angeles Times (2011). Mapping L.A.: Median Income. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: < http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/income/median/neighborhood/list/>

96 Matsunga, M., & Flaming, D. (2009). Benchmark for Family Sustaining Wage in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA: Economic Roundtable: 1

97 Zavis, A., Bloomenkatz, A., Poindexter, S. (2011). L.A. County Poverty Rate Jumps for Third Straight Year to 17.5%. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/los-anegles-county-poverty-rate.html>

98 California Budget Project. (2011). New Data Show That More Than 6 Million Californians -- Over One-Third of Them Children -- Lived in Poverty in 2010. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2011/110913_Income_Poverty_Health.pdf>: 1

99 California Budget Project. (2011). New Data Show That More Than 6 Million Californians -- Over One-Third of Them Children -- Lived in Poverty in 2010. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2011/110913_Income_Poverty_Health.pdf>: 1


100 Insight Center for Community Economic Development. (2011). The Self-Suf!ciency Standard for Los Angeles County, 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.insightcced.org/uploads/cfes/2011/Los%20Angeles.pdf






106 Semuels, A. (2011). California to Suffer Housing Shift, UCLA Forecasters Say. Los Angeles Times: Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/15/business/la-!-econ-forecast-20110615>

107 State of California. (2012). Los Angeles County Pro!le. Employment Development Department. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/localAreaPro!leQSResults.asp?selectedarea=Los+Angeles+County&selectedindex=19&menuChoice=localAreaPro&state=true&geogArea=0604000037>

108 U.S. Census Bureau (2011). American Community Survey, 2011 Summary Tables. Retrieved from: <http://fact!nder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_1YR_S2301&prodType=table>


110 U.S. Census Bureau (2010). American Community Survey, 2010 Summary Tables. Retrieved from: <http://fact!nder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_1YR_B19081&prodType=table>


112 Mercer (2011). Cost-of-Living Report Survey Highlights. London: Author. Retrieved from: <http://www.mercer.com/referencecontent.htm?idContent=1416130>

113 The metrics and sub-metrics for Income and Employment are listed below:For vacancy rates, research focused on the following: (1) city and countywide vacancy rates, compared to other large metropolitan areasFor median rent, research focused on the following: (1) City of Los Angeles median rents compared to other large metropolitan areasFor median sales price, research focused on the following: (1) quarterly median sales price reports for the L.A. metropolitan statistical areaFor housing affordability, research focused on the following: (1) number of households with housing costs exceeding 30 percent of income

114 U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). American Community Survey Select Housing Statistics. Retrieved from: <http://fact!nder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t>





118 National Association of Realtors. (2012). Median Sales Price of Existing Single-Family Homes for Metropolitan Areas. Retrieved from: <http://www.car.org/newsstand/newsreleases/2012releases/julysales>

119 Bespoke Investment Group (2012). Updated Case-Shiller Home Price Indices. Seeking Alpha. Retrieved from: <http://seekingalpha.com/article/890691-housing-market-check-up>



122 Wardrip, K. (2012). An Annual Look at the Housing Affordability Challenges of America’s Working Households. Housing Landscape 2012. Center for Housing Policy, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: <http://www.nhc.org/media/!les/Landscape2012.pdf>: 11


124 California Association of Realtors (2012). C.A.R. Releases Q2 Housing Affordability Index. Retrieved from: <http://www.car.org/newsstand/newsreleases/2012newsreleases/Q2ai/>


126 Wolch, J., Blasi, G. (2008). L.A.’s Homeless: A Progress Report. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: <http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/22/opinion/op-dear22>

127 Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (2011). 2011 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count Report. Retrieved from: <http://www.lahsa.org/docs/2011-Homeless-Count/HC11-Detailed-Geography-Report-FINAL.PDF>: 11


129 Block, M., Carter, S., & Mclean, A. (n.d.). Mapping America. New York Times. Retrieved from: <http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer>

130 U.S. Department of Housing and Human Development (2011). Affordable Housing. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: <http://www.hud.gov/of!ces/cpd/affordablehousing/>

131 California Budget Project (2008). Locked Out 2008: A Pro!le of California Counties. Sacramento, CA: 16


133 Green, R. (2011). Personal interview.

134 U.S. Census Bureau (2010). American Community Survey Select Housing Statistics. Retrieved from: <http://fact!nder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t>



137 The metrics and sub-metrics for Health are listed below:For rates of chronic disease, research focused on the following: (1) diabetes, (2) obesity, and (3) high blood pressureFor access to healthcare, research focused on the following: (1) insurance rates, (2) prevalence of facilities (hospital beds per 1,000 people), (3) maternal health (including pre-natal care and infant mortality rates)For mortality and morbidity, research focused on the following: (1) life expectancy and (2) causes of death


138 Porter, K.S. et al. (2011). Health of Adults in Los Angeles County: Findings From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004. National Health Statistics Report, 42: Retrieved from: <www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr042.pdf>

139 County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services. (2003). Obesity on the Rise. Department of Public Health. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/ha/reports/habriefs/lahealth073003_obes.pdf>: 2


141 Cousineau, M. R. (2009). Health and Health Care Access in Los Angeles County. University of California, Keck School of Medicine. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.patbrowninstitute.org/documents/HPOCReport8-20-09.pdf>: 6-7

142 U.S. Census Bureau (2010). American Community Survey Selected Economic Characteristics. Retrieved from: <http://fact!nder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_1YR_DP03&prodType=table>

143 Cousineau, M. R. (2009). Health and Health Care Access in Los Angeles County. University of California, Keck School of Medicine. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.patbrowninstitute.org/documents/HPOCReport8-20-09.pdf>: 7

144 Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. (2010). Cause of Death and Premature Death: Trends for 1998-2007. Retrieved from: <http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/dca/data/documents/2007MortalityReport.pdf>: 1



147 Bjornstrom, E. (2011). To Live and Die in L.A. County: Neighborhood Economic and Social Context and Premature Age-Speci!c Mortality Rates Among Latinos. Health & Place 17: 236



150 Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. (2010). Life Expectancy in Los Angeles County: How Long Dow We Live and Why? A Cities and Communities Health Report. Retrieved from: <http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/epi/docs/Life%20Expectancy%20Final_web.pdf>: 2

151 Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. (2010). Life Expectancy in Los Angeles County: How Long Dow We Live and Why? A Cities and Communities Health Report. Retrieved from: <http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/epi/docs/Life%20Expectancy%20Final_web.pdf>: 5




155 U.S. Census Bureau (2010). American Community Survey Select Economic Statistics. Retrieved from: <http://fact!nder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_1YR_DP03&prodType=table>

156 Los Angeles Collaborative for Environmental Health and Justice (2010). Hidden Hazards: A Call to Action for Healthy, Livable Communities. Los Angeles, CA: Liberty Hill Foundation. Retrieved from: <http://www.libertyhill.org/document.doc?id=202>: 7


157 South Coast Air Quality Management District (2008). Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) III Final Report. Diamond Bar, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/matesIII/MATESIIIFinalReportSept2008.html>: ES-4

158 Wolch, J., Wilson, J.P. & Fehrenbach, J. (2002). Parks and Park Funding in Los Angeles: An Equity Mapping Analysis. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Retrieved from: <http://biodiversity.ca.gov/Meetings/archive/ej/USC.pdf >

159 Trust for Public Land (2004). No Place to Play: A Comparative Analysis of Park Access in Seven Major Cities. San Diego, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.8-80cities.org/Articles/Trust%20for%20Public%20Land%20No%20Place%20To%20Play.pdf >

160 Wolch, J., Wilson, J.P. & Fehrenbach, J. (2002). Parks and Park Funding in Los Angeles: An Equity Mapping Analysis. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Retrieved from: <http://biodiversity.ca.gov/Meetings/archive/ej/USC.pdf >

161 The Los Angeles Food Policy Task Force (2010). The Good Food for All Agenda: Creating a New Regional Food System for Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA: Retrieved from: <http://goodfoodlosangeles.!les.wordpress.com/2010/07/good-food-full_report_single_072010.pdf>




165 Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (2008). Childhood Obesity: Tipping the Balance Toward Healthy, Active Children. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/ha/docs/LA_HEALTH_BREIFS_2008/Childhood_Obesity_!nal.pdf>


167 Elmendorf, D.W. (2011). CBO’s Analysis of the Major Health Care Legislation Enacted in March 2010: Statement of Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director. Congressional Budget Of!ce, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: < http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-HealthCareLegislation.pdf>: 16-18


169 The metrics and sub-metrics for Environmental Quality are listed below:For proximity to parks and open space, research focused on the following: (1) proportion of city land dedicated to parks and open space, acres of park space per 1,000 residents, and (3) acres of park space per 1,000 residents, by raceFor air quality, research focused on the following: (1) particle pollution rates, (2) estimated cancer risk associated with exposure to air toxics, and (3) estimated cancer risk associated with exposure to air toxics, by raceFor water quality, research focused on the following: (1) drinking and irrigation water sources, (2) historic water usage (measured in acre feet), (3) historic water demand (acre feet), (4) water conservation (acre feet), (5) amounts of pollutants and contaminants in drinking water, and (6) concentrations of fecal bacteria in the surf zone

170 Trust for Public Land (2010). 2010 City Park Facts. San Diego, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.tpl.org/publications/books-reports/ccpe-publications/city-park-facts-report-2010.html>

171 Trust for Public Land (2004). No Place to Play: A Comparative Analysis of Park Access in Seven Major Cities. San Diego, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.8-80cities.org/Articles/Trust%20for%20Public%20Land%20No%20Place%20To%20Play.pdf>: 3

172 Trust for Public Land (2004). No Place to Play: A Comparative Analysis of Park Access in Seven Major Cities. San Diego, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.8-80cities.org/Articles/Trust%20for%20Public%20Land%20No%20Place%20To%20Play.pdf>


173 Wolch, J., Wilson, J.P. & Fehrenbach, J. (2002). Parks and Park Funding in Los Angeles: An Equity Mapping Analysis. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Retrieved from: <www.usc.edu/dept/geography/ESPE/documents/publications_parks.pdf>

174 South Coast Air Quality Management District (2008). Multiple air toxics exposure study (MATES) III !nal report. Diamond Bar, CA: Author. Retrieved from: <http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/matesIII/MATESIIIFinalReportSept2008.html>: 1-1


176 Port of Los Angeles (2012). Port of Los Angeles Clean Truck Program. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.porto"osangeles.org/ctp/CTP_Fact_Sheet.pdf >: 1


178 Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (2010). Urban Water Management Plan. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp014334.pdf>: 8

179 Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (2010). Urban Water Management Plan. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp014334.pdf>: 35

180 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (2010). Integrated Water Resources Plan: 2010 Update -- Technical Appendix. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/irp/IRP_Appendix.pdf>: A.14-2




184 Abrams, C. (2011). Danger in the Air: Unhealthy Air Days in 2010 and 2011. Sacramento, CA: Environment California Research & Policy Center. Retrieved from: <http://media2.wcpo.com/pdfs/DangerInTheAirReport_OHE_WEB.pdf>: 9

185 South Coast Air Quality Management District (2011). Historic Ozone Air Quality Trends. Diamond Bar, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/o3trend.html>

186 Port of Los Angeles (2012). Port of Los Angeles Clean Truck Program. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.porto"osangeles.org/ctp/CTP_Fact_Sheet.pdf >: 1

187 California Air Resources Board (2011). Truck and Bus Regulation Reducing Emissions from Existing Diesel Vehicles. Sacramento, CA: California Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from: <http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/documents/fsoverview.pdf>: 2





191 Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (2010). Urban Water Management Plan. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp014334.pdf>

192 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (2010). The Regional Urban Water Management Plan. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/irp/IRP2010Report.pdf>: 4-1

193 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (2010). Integrated Water Resources Plan: 2010 Update. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/irp/IRP2010Report.pdf>: 1-11-12

194 Freeman, G. (2008). Securing Reliable Water Supplies for Southern California. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. Retrieved from: <http://www.laedc.org/sclc/documents/Water_SecuringReliableWaterSupplies.pdf>: 14

195 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (2010). Integrated Water Resources Plan: 2010 Update -- Technical Appendix. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/irp/IRP_Appendix.pdf>: A.14-2

196 Freeman, G. (2008). Securing Reliable Water Supplies for Southern California. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. Retrieved from: <http://www.laedc.org/sclc/documents/Water_SecuringReliableWaterSupplies.pdf>: 15

197 Schwartz, M. (2006). Experts Fear Impacts of Quake on Delta. Stanford Report. Stanford, CA. Retrieved from: <http://news.stanford.edu/news/2006/may17/delta-051706.html>

198 Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (2010). Urban Water Management Plan. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp014334.pdf>

199 The metrics and sub-metrics for Public Safety are listed below:For crime rates, research focused on the following: (1) number of violent crimes per 1,000 capita, (2) number of non-violent crimes per 1,000 capita, and (3) police of!cers per 1,000 capitaFor perception, research focused on the following: (1) neighborhood perceptions of crime, (2) effects of immigration on crime, and (3) perception of crime based on socioeconomic status

200 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (2010). Crime in the United States. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: <http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl08.xls/view>

201 Barboza, T. (2011). Serious Crimes Continue Historic Drop, LAPD says. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/13/local/la-me-0713-crime-stats-20110713>

202 Los Angeles Times (2011). Mapping L.A.: Violent Crime. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/violent-crime/neighborhood/list/>

203 MacDonald, J. et al. (2009). Neighborhood Effects on Crime and Youth Violence. Los Angeles, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: <www.labidconsortium.org/pdf/RAND_TR622.pdf>

204 Jones, M., Pebley, A.R. & Sastry, N. (2010). Eyes on the Block: Measuring Urban Physical Disorder Through In-Person Observation. Los Angeles, CA: California Center for Population Research, UCLA. Retrieved from: <http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/download.php?paper=PWP-CCPR-2010-049>: 3

205 Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., Graham, S. (2006). Ethnic Diversity and Perceptions of Safety in Urban Middle Schools. Psychological Science, 17(5).

206 Butcher, K.F. & Piehl, A.M. (2008). Crime, Corrections, and California. California Counts: Population Trends and Pro!les. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from: <http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=776>

207 Butcher, K.F., Piehl, A.M. (2008). Crime, Corrections, and California. California Counts: Population Trends and Pro!les. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from: <http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=776>: 2

208 Butcher, K.F., Piehl, A.M. (2008). Crime, Corrections, and California. California Counts: Population Trends and Pro!les. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from: <http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=776>: 2


209 Los Angeles Police Department (2012). COMPSTAT Citywide Pro!le. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/cityprof.pdf>


211 Los Angeles Police Department (2004). LAPD Plan of Action: Book II. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/pdf_view/6257>

212 Hymon, S. (2007). Would More Police Mean Even Less Crime? Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: <http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/23/local/me-localgovtqa23>




216 Barboza, T. (2011). Serious Crimes Continue Historic Drop, LAPD Says. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/13/local/la-me-0713-crime-stats-20110713>


218 MacDonald, J. et al. (2009). Neighborhood Effects on Crime and Youth Violence. Los Angeles, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: <www.labidconsortium.org/pdf/RAND_TR622.pdf>


220 Will, J.A. & McGrath, J.H. (1995). Crime, Neighborhood Perception, and the Underclass: The Relationship Between Fear of Crime and Class Position. Journal of Criminal Justice, 23 (2): 164

221 Aizer, A. (2008). Neighborhood Violence and Urban Youth. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from: <http:www.nber.org/papers/w13773>: 15

222 Aizer, A. (2008). Neighborhood Violence and Urban Youth. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from: <http:www.nber.org/papers/w13773>: 15

223 Jones, M., Pebley, A.R. & Sastry, N. (2010). Eyes on the Block: Measuring Urban Physical Disorder Through In-Person Observation. Los Angeles, CA: California Center for Population Research, UCLA. Retrieved from: <http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/download.php?paper=PWP-CCPR-2010-049>


225 Butcher, K.F. & Piehl, A.M. (2008). Crime, Corrections, and California. California Counts: Population Trends and Pro!les. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from: <http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=776>

226 MacDonald, J. et al. (2009). Neighborhood effects on crime and youth violence. Los Angeles, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: <www.labidconsortium.org/pdf/RAND_TR622.pdf>: 69



228 The metrics and sub-metrics for Social Connectedness are listed below:For volunteerism and giving, the research focused on: (1) rates of volunteerism and (2) rates of charitable giving to religious and non-religious organizations or causesFor voting, the research focused on: (1) voting rates for presidential elections and (2) voting rates by educational attainmentFor civic and social engagement, research focused on: (1) political engagement (discussing politics, reading newspapers, contacting a representative), (2) diversity of friendships and number of reported social interactions, (3) levels of social trust, and (4) levels of community satisfaction

229 The Saguaro Seminar: Civic Engagement in America (2001). The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey Executive Summary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Retrieved from: <http://www.cfsv.org/communitysurvey/docs/exec_summ.pdf> : 7


231 National Conference on Citizenship (2011). Civic Life in America: Los Angeles, CA. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: <http://civic.serve.gov/CA/Los-Angeles>


233 National Conference on Citizenship (2011). Civic Life in America: Los Angeles, CA. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: <http://civic.serve.gov/CA/San-Francisco>

234 California Community Foundation (n.d.). Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey: Data Highlights from the Los Angeles Sample. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.cfsv.org/communitysurvey/docs/cala_sh.pdf>: 6






240 National Conference on Citizenship (2011). Civic Life in America: Los Angeles, CA. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: < http://civic.serve.gov/national>


242 National Conference on Citizenship (2011). Civic Life in America: Los Angeles, CA. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: < http://civic.serve.gov/national>





246 Brown, E. & Ferris, J.M. (2003). Philanthropy and Social Capital in Los Angeles. The Center on Philanthropy & Public Policy: Research and Analysis to Advance Public Problem Solving, 3 (2). Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Retrieved from: <http://cppp.usc.edu/doc/Social_Capital_highlight.pdf>

247 Brown, E. & Ferris, J.M. (2003). Philanthropy and Social Capital in Los Angeles. The Center on Philanthropy & Public Policy: Research and Analysis to Advance Public Problem Solving, 3 (2). Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Retrieved from: <http://cppp.usc.edu/doc/Social_Capital_highlight.pdf>: 2





252 The metrics and sub-metrics for Arts and Cultural Vitality are listed belowFor presence, research focused on the following: (1) art establishments per capita, (2) the number of nonpro!t community celebrations, festivals, fairs and parades, (3) access to higher education arts institutionsFor participation, research focused on the following: (1) K-12 arts education and after-school arts programs and (2) presence of working artistsFor support, research focused on the following: (1) public expenditures in support of the arts and (2) foundation and nonpro!t contributions and expenditures in support of the arts

253 Urban Institute (2010). Arts and Culture Indicators Project Data: 2006-2008. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: <http://www.metrotrends.org/data.cfm>

254 Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation (2010). Otis Report on The Creative Economy of the Los Angeles Region: The Power of Art and Artists. Los Angeles, CA: Otis College of Art and Design. Retrieved from: <http://www.otis.edu/creative_economy/>: 39

255 National Association of Schools of Art and Design (2011). Member Lists. Reston, VA. Retrieved from: <http://nasad.arts-accredit.org/index.jsp?page=Member%20Lists>

256 Markusen, A. (2010). Los Angeles: America’s Artist Super City. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Cultural Innovation. Retrieved from: <http://www.hhh.umn.edu/projects/prie/pdf/MarkusenLAArtistSuperCityFinal1010.pdf>

257 Urban Institute (2010). Arts and culture indicators project data: 2006-2008. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from: <http://www.metrotrends.org/data.cfm>

258 Urban Institute (2010). Arts and culture indicators project data: 2006-2008. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from: <http://www.metrotrends.org/data.cfm>

259 Markusen, A. (2010). Los Angeles: America’s Artist Super City. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Cultural Innovation. Retrieved from: <http://www.hhh.umn.edu/projects/prie/pdf/MarkusenLAArtistSuperCityFinal1010.pdf>: 12

260 Los Angeles Uni!ed School District Arts Education Branch (2011). Access, Equity, and Quality: Arts and Creativity in Learning 2011-2014 (DRAFT). The Arts Education Master Plan. Los Angeles, CA.

261 Los Angeles Uni!ed School District Arts Education Branch (2011). Access, Equity, and Quality: Arts and Creativity in Learning 2011-2014 (DRAFT). The Arts Education Master Plan. Los Angeles, CA: 9

262 Song, J. (2011). Los Angeles Schools Budget Woes Hit Arts Programs Hard. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA: Author. Retrieved from: <http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/13/local/la-me-arts-funds-20110613>

263 Howard, D.B., Hyeon, J.K., Guihama, J. (2009). Arts in the Balance: A Survey of Arts Funding in Los Angeles County 1998 to 2008. Los Angeles, CA: Southern California Grantmakers & UCLA Center for Civil Society. Retrieved from: <http://www.spa.ucla.edu/ccs/docs/LA_Arts_Funders_Full_Report_(April%202009).pdf>: 17



265 Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation (2010). Otis Report on The Creative Economy of the Los Angeles Region: The Power of Art and Artists. Los Angeles, CA: Otis College of Art and Design. Retrieved from: <http://www.otis.edu/creative_economy/>

266 Currid, E. & Williams, S. (2010). The Geography of Buzz: Art, Culture and the Social Milieu in Los Angeles and New York. Journal of Economic Geography, 10 (3): 423-451.















281 Myers, D. (2011). The Future Demographic Outlook of Los Angeles. Population Dynamics Research Group, Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California. Los Angeles, CA: 2-3


70LA2050 Reportwww.LA2050.org

Goldhirsh Foundation




286 Modarres, A. (2011). Los Angeles Gets Old. New Geography. Retrieved from: <http://www.newgeography.com/content/002566-los-angeles-gets-old>

287 Committee on the Future Health Care Workforce for Older Americans, Institute of Medicine (2008). Retooling for an Aging America: Building the Health Care Workforce. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: < http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12089.html>: 5

288 California Health and Human Services Agency (2003). A Strategic Plan for an Aging California Population: Getting California Ready for the ‘Baby Boomers.’ Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from: <http://www.ccoa.ca.gov/res/docs/pubs/population.pdf>: 3

289 Bailey, T. (1991). Jobs of the Future and the Education They Will Require: Evidence from Occupational Forecasts. Educational Researcher, 20(2): 11; Friedman, T.L., Mandelbaum, M. (2011). That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World it Invented and How we can Come Back. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, NY: 103-109

290 Hirschi, T., Gottfredson, M. (1983). Age and the Explanation of Crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89(3): 552

PREPARED BY:

Estolano LeSar Perez Advisors510 W. 6th StreetSuite 1100ALos Angeles, CA 90014213-612-4545www.elpadvisors.com

DESIGNED BY:

Cynthia Tan Design310-595-6238

[email protected] www.cynthiatandesign.com

losangelesawesome.good.is.s3.amazonaws.com/maker/goldhirsh... · the story of los angeles is a...

Documents